Political Roundtable Part XIV

[Zonkerbl]

Check out my logic here regarding the ACA. It very well may contain some flaws.

1. The ACA will likely collapse completely if the tax payer funded govt. cost sharing payments to insurers end.

2. A federal judge has ruled that those cost sharing payments are unconstitutional because the funds were never appropriated in the text of the law or afterward.

3. It is unclear that even if the decision is appealed that it would be reversed.

4. Some legal scholars say it is highly unlikely that the decision would be reversed because the text is clear in that regard (no monies appropriated).

5. Trump admin. could appeal and hope for the best or inform lawmakers that he will not appeal but will continue with the unconstitutional cost-sharing payments for some finite time period (say six months or a year) so as not to further disrupt the marketplace.
edit - He should ask for an appropriation for that period of time to make it lawful.

Once everyone understands that total collapse is imminent wouldn’t congress be under immense pressure to work on a bipartisan basis to replace it?

Trump has said is plan is to allow the ACA to collapse so people will have to accept the House version that kicks 22 million people off of healthcare. Which is precisely the opposite of a bipartisan solution.

No, the only way we'll see any bipartisanship is if it turns out to be impossible to pass the Tea Party "kick the poor off healthcare and give the savings to the rich" legislation and the Republicans are forced to turn to the Democrats for help.

I suppose another way we'll see "bipartisanship" is if the Republicans pass the Tea Party version and then all lose their jobs in the House in 2018, but the senate stays GOP controlled. Then they really will have no choice but to hammer out something bipartisan. Although that's kind of what we had under Obama and the GOP refused to negotiate in good faith. Somehow with all of them selling out to Trump I doubt they've gotten *more* cooperative. Maybe because they know Trump will be on their side... Well, who knows. We'll just have to see. I can't claim to understand US politics anymore.

[Zonkerbl]

Maybe I'm a radical conservative then Everyone doesn't want to conserve habits and institutions that work well PIF. There are millions of Americans for example that want to do away with the electoral college. If you think about it, you can come up with many other things that have worked well in the past that people want to eliminate. Think about Indu's family health insurance. It worked very well for him in the past and then it was canceled and replaced with a much more expensive plan that doesn't work well.

The pre-Obamacare health insurance system may have worked well for Indu and his family but it wasn't working well for many other Americans. I, or one, am glad that the Obama Administration didn't feel the need to "conserve" a healthcare system that left 40 plus million Americans without access to affordable care.

Now, we need to fix Obamacare, which is doable, so that it eventually works well for all Americans.

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

[closg00]

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-email-leaked-buzzfeed-trump-russia-document-2017-7

That has to finally bury Trump, right?

Not yet.

What this email shows is that the Trump team was definitely very gung ho about digging up dirt on Hillary and had no idea that using dirt dug up by Russia would be somehow illegal. None.

There's still no evidence that Russia actually provided them with anything, so there's still no evidence the Trump team did anything wrong.

But if I'm an FBI officer on the Russian investigation team, and I put myself in Russia's shoes, I have to wonder, surely Russia knew how eager the Trump team was to break the law (unknowingly). So here's an opportunity for us (Russia) to influence the election in the direction we want. And I know that whatever the equivalent of the KGB these days in Russia is, those guys are professionals and probably knew how to hide what they were doing really well. So as a law enforcement officer I *must* conclude that the bad guys took advantage of the security weakness that was presented to them and did something about it, and it is my *duty* to dig in as hard as is necessary to detect interference of KGB-level sophistication.

At this point I would be *extremely* surprised not to discover a full-fledged effort of the Russia KGB types to suborn Trump's staff, and given the monumental level of ignorance and incompetence they've displayed so far I'd be shocked if they didn't fall for it hook line and sinker. So it's got to be just a matter of time before we find something.

The emails show that:

1.Trump and the people around him are unethical liars just like Trump is as they have been caught lying repeatedly about their contacts with Russians.
2. The emails show that they were in-fact willing to collude with a foreign power to help get daddy Trump elected
3. People inside the Trump campaign KNEW that the contact was "part of Russian and it's governments support for Mr. Trump"

Since Jr's emails piggy-backs on many details of the Steel Dossier, the part of the dossier that states that Clinton documents are being fed to the Trump campaign, are probably true, unproven yet, but so-far, the Steele dossier has been money.

One thing that hasn't been reported much is that this entire episode with Jr, is classic spy craft, it's called a "dangle" The foreign power will test a potential turncoat to see if they are actually willing to commit crimes and Jr bit. What happens next is that someone else will follow-up to arrange the real details, by referring back to this one incident in-which nothing changes hands, the target has deniability. Flynn is the guy who probably took-care of the dirty work.

At a minimum, Flynn and Kushner can be charged with lying about the disclosure form they signed that stated that they had not met with any foreigner etc, they retroactively tried to fix this after they got caught LYING, but they can still be prosecuted for that.

[bsilver]

There's a good chance that Roe vs Wade could be reversed in the next few years. A Kennedy retirement, replaced by a Gorsuch like judge would result in a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the deciding vote. He's strongly anti-abortion, but has said Roe vs Wade is decided law. His vote is not certain. Another liberal retirement - probably due to health - none would ever leave under a Republican - would virtually guarantee reversal of Roe vs Wade.

Reversing Roe vs Wade would leave abortion up to the states. The chances of a uniform federal govt policy by Constitution Amendment or legislation are extremely unlikely. Policy left to individual states would lead to chaos. Abortion in one state would be murder, and legal in a neighboring state. Women who could afford it would go to another state for an abortion. Poor women wanting abortions would be the only ones more likely to give birth. But, people such as myself, would gladly provide funds for travel to an abortion state.
The end result would not be that different than today. Women wanting abortions will still have access.

Isn't it just as likely that women without the means or desire to travel to another state for a legal abortion will seek out illegal abortions in their home states, thus sending us back to a time when women had to put their lives and freedom in jeopardy in order to choose to have an abortion?

There would be some illegal abortions. I would guess not as many as before since most women could go out of state.

Each state could pass it's own laws. As you remember from the last campaign, Trump talked about punishing women getting abortions but had to backtrack because the general pro-life position is to only punish the one providing the abortion. So, there may not be penalties for the women, but it would be state by state.

I doubt that experienced medical professionals would provide abortions. The penalties would be too high and they typically wouldn't need the money. Also, there would be legal out of state alternatives. Abortions would probably be of the "back alley" type, thus endangering the mother.

Abortions can be induced by pills, Mifepristone and Misoprostol, for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Anti-abortion states would try to stop availability, but a black market would certainly develop. The drugs would be easy to get. Also, pro-choicers would develop means to get women these drugs. To reduce this type of abortion the states would have to have harsh penalties for the mother.

[I_Like_Dirt]

...because making drugs illegal and imposing stiff penalties has clearly been proven effective...

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Maybe I'm a radical conservative then Everyone doesn't want to conserve habits and institutions that work well PIF. There are millions of Americans for example that want to do away with the electoral college. If you think about it, you can come up with many other things that have worked well in the past that people want to eliminate. Think about Indu's family health insurance. It worked very well for him in the past and then it was canceled and replaced with a much more expensive plan that doesn't work well.

The pre-Obamacare health insurance system may have worked well for Indu and his family but it wasn't working well for many other Americans. I, or one, am glad that the Obama Administration didn't feel the need to "conserve" a healthcare system that left 40 plus million Americans without access to affordable care.

Now, we need to fix Obamacare, which is doable, so that it eventually works well for all Americans.

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

[DCZards]

The pre-Obamacare health insurance system may have worked well for Indu and his family but it wasn't working well for many other Americans. I, or one, am glad that the Obama Administration didn't feel the need to "conserve" a healthcare system that left 40 plus million Americans without access to affordable care.

Now, we need to fix Obamacare, which is doable, so that it eventually works well for all Americans.

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

You're right, it's probably not politically possible to scrap Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions. But, maybe more importantly, it's not possible from a practical standpoint either.

Everyday, Americans across the country use Medicaid, Medicare, ACA and healthcare deductions for medical care. I don't know how you can simply "scrap" those programs without it having a devastating impact on millions of individuals and families. Heck, the Repubs are discovering that it's not possible to simply scrap ACA, much less Medicaid and Medicare.

[verbal8]

The pre-Obamacare health insurance system may have worked well for Indu and his family but it wasn't working well for many other Americans. I, or one, am glad that the Obama Administration didn't feel the need to "conserve" a healthcare system that left 40 plus million Americans without access to affordable care.

Now, we need to fix Obamacare, which is doable, so that it eventually works well for all Americans.

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

The start over option is something an outsider can provide. However Trump has proven to not be that outsider.

Someone with a business background like Cuban/Bloomberg or even Carly Fiorina and some attention to detail may have been able to get that process started. I think the end product ends up loaded in pork/special interests, because that is how Washington works. However it takes leadership to focus on a problem and put something out there.

I think the answer to a lot of these issues is to make them smaller in scale but at least maintain their progressive nature. A decent improvement in the social security solvency could happen if the contribution cap was removed. Even more so if top benefit was lowered.

On healthcare deductions it might be worth the complexity to create a system where the tax system that plans for the rank and file are encouraged, but for high earner/expensive plans are not.

[cammac]

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

You're right, it's probably not politically possible to scrap Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions. But, maybe more importantly, it's not possible from a practical standpoint either.

Everyday, Americans across the country use Medicaid, Medicare, ACA and healthcare deductions for medical care. I don't know how you can simply "scrap" those programs without it having a devastating impact on millions of individuals and families. Heck, the Repubs are discovering that it's not possible to simply scrap ACA, much less Medicaid and Medicare.

The Taiwan system was based on Medicaid and it provides healthcare for all for 5.7% of the GDP. The enemies of having a system that is more affordable and works in not particular order are Politicians, Lawyers, Big Pharma, Private Hospitals, Insurance Companies, AMA and unfortunately the American people. The USA needs a single pay system like the rest of the advanced democracies. The financial impact can be handled via payroll taxes on both employees and employers and possible a VAT tax or Increase in taxes on petroleum product. The government must bite the bullet and purchase the private hospital or dictate fees that they can charge. Big Pharma needs to conform to drug pricing in other countries and lawyers limited to awards against pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors. Insurance companies to be eliminated from a basic services but allowed policies for services not provided under the national plan. The thing you must remember is that the top 1% gets 95% of economic gain and pay a tax rate from 22.83% to 17.6 for the top .001%. Its nice argue that the rich pay a significant part of income taxes in $ the reality is that in many respects they are welfare bums. Look at the average tax rate of a middle class person in USA. One thing i do agree with is lowering tax rates on business in fact Canada's is 15%.

The reality is the average American worries too much about taxes rather than getting value for taxes paid.

[dckingsfan]

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

You're right, it's probably not politically possible to scrap Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions. But, maybe more importantly, it's not possible from a practical standpoint either.

Everyday, Americans across the country use Medicaid, Medicare, ACA and healthcare deductions for medical care. I don't know how you can simply "scrap" those programs without it having a devastating impact on millions of individuals and families. Heck, the Repubs are discovering that it's not possible to simply scrap ACA, much less Medicaid and Medicare.

Yep, and neither party is doing anything about its race to insolvency. When that happens - it is going to be really ugly.

[dckingsfan]

BTW, CBO budget analysis of Trump's spending plan is out. It does cut the deficit some but...

The President’s proposals would affect the economy in a variety of ways; however, because the details on many of the proposed policies are not available at this time, CBO cannot provide an analysis of all their macroeconomic effects or of the budgetary feedback that would result from those effects.

So, basically that is a "no-plan" plan. The difference in the Trump budget assumptions vs. the CBO budget assumptions is growth. Trump is saying 3% and the CBO is saying "how exactly".

If Trump truly wants growth, he would need to one of or more of: Overhaul the tax code; Have smart Immigration; Reduce the cost drivers for Healthcare; Improve educational outcomes; Remove entitlements from baseline spending; Other smaller things like an Infrastructure Spend (although that money rarely gets spent quickly due to environmental reviews.

His plan to overhaul the tax code looks to be DOA. He has no immigration plan. He is fixated on repealing the ACA vs. fixing Healthcare. Increased Educational outcomes will only come from states. Reducing baseline spending - hahaha.

I see more kicking the can down the road.

[cammac]

BTW, CBO budget analysis of Trump's spending plan is out. It does cut the deficit some but...

The President’s proposals would affect the economy in a variety of ways; however, because the details on many of the proposed policies are not available at this time, CBO cannot provide an analysis of all their macroeconomic effects or of the budgetary feedback that would result from those effects.

So, basically that is a "no-plan" plan. The difference in the Trump budget assumptions vs. the CBO budget assumptions is growth. Trump is saying 3% and the CBO is saying "how exactly".

If Trump truly wants growth, he would need to one of or more of: Overhaul the tax code; Have smart Immigration; Reduce the cost drivers for Healthcare; Improve educational outcomes; Remove entitlements from baseline spending; Other smaller things like an Infrastructure Spend (although that money rarely gets spent quickly due to environmental reviews.

His plan to overhaul the tax code looks to be DOA. He has no immigration plan. He is fixated on repealing the ACA vs. fixing Healthcare. Increased Educational outcomes will only come from states. Reducing baseline spending - hahaha.

I see more kicking the can down the road.

Also Monday Trump must release his requests for changes in NAFTA and if he is his usual undisciplined self will result in a trade war that will negatively effect the American Economy. Yes Canada will be affected but not to the extent many believe and most issues are already under WTO guidelines. Canada has broadened its free trade agreements with the Euro Zone and with Asia.

[dckingsfan]

BTW, CBO budget analysis of Trump's spending plan is out. It does cut the deficit some but...

The President’s proposals would affect the economy in a variety of ways; however, because the details on many of the proposed policies are not available at this time, CBO cannot provide an analysis of all their macroeconomic effects or of the budgetary feedback that would result from those effects.

So, basically that is a "no-plan" plan. The difference in the Trump budget assumptions vs. the CBO budget assumptions is growth. Trump is saying 3% and the CBO is saying "how exactly".

If Trump truly wants growth, he would need to one of or more of: Overhaul the tax code; Have smart Immigration; Reduce the cost drivers for Healthcare; Improve educational outcomes; Remove entitlements from baseline spending; Other smaller things like an Infrastructure Spend (although that money rarely gets spent quickly due to environmental reviews.

His plan to overhaul the tax code looks to be DOA. He has no immigration plan. He is fixated on repealing the ACA vs. fixing Healthcare. Increased Educational outcomes will only come from states. Reducing baseline spending - hahaha.

I see more kicking the can down the road.

Also Monday Trump must release his requests for changes in NAFTA and if he is his usual undisciplined self will result in a trade war that will negatively effect the American Economy. Yes Canada will be affected but not to the extent many believe and most issues are already under WTO guidelines. Canada has broadened its free trade agreements with the Euro Zone and with Asia.

I could see Trump being Trump and being vindictive... but I think the agriculture states pull him back in.

The biggest losers from NAFTA were the Mexican farmers and US manufacturing employees. Trump will have to trade agriculture for manufacturing jobs. Interesting.

[Zonkerbl]

The pre-Obamacare health insurance system may have worked well for Indu and his family but it wasn't working well for many other Americans. I, or one, am glad that the Obama Administration didn't feel the need to "conserve" a healthcare system that left 40 plus million Americans without access to affordable care.

Now, we need to fix Obamacare, which is doable, so that it eventually works well for all Americans.

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

It's all in how you implement the regulations. Obama administration really overstepped their authority there, unnecessarily imo.

[TGW]

Well, the best time to fix it would have been right after it passed. It should have been fairly simple to clarify to the regulators that the barebones policies small business owners bought for themselves should be grandfathered in somehow. I think the Cruz amendment being proposed now is an attempt to fix that. Depends on how they implement it.

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

It's all in how you implement the regulations. Obama administration really overstepped their authority there, unnecessarily imo.

They can fix the ACA by making it a single-payer system.

The ACA is a Republican bill. That's why it's a complete failure.

[dckingsfan]

Zonk, do you think that is the case. I have tried to wade through the bill. I am not sure how it could have been done.

Me thinks they need to scrap the whole damn thing, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA, healthcare deductions... and start over.

I know that isn't a political possibility. But fixing the ACA is probably not a political possibility either.

It's all in how you implement the regulations. Obama administration really overstepped their authority there, unnecessarily imo.

They can fix the ACA by making it a single-payer system.

The ACA is a Republican bill. That's why it's a complete failure.

ACA is a complete failure - should be repealed, got it.

But... a single payer would fail too - at least until they take care of the cost drivers. Agreed? Or is single payer the panacea that fixes healthcare?

[payitforward]

...It's certainly possible that I misunderstood cammac's intended meaning. I too suspect he is French Canadian and that might explain some of the communications disconnect.

Yes I've read the Constitution many time. Years ago I even took a semester course on it. No I can't quote the second amendment by heart. I'm old PIF. Sometimes I can't even remember the names of my nieces and nephews. I will read everything you linked to once my out of town guests depart. Yes there are SC decisions that I disagree with.

Old? You don't know from old, Popper. I'm way older than you. By the time you look at those links I gave you, I'll have forgotten I ever linked to them!

Here is the entirety of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There was no intention of any kind in respect to an individual. The founders knew how to write, they knew the phrase "an individual" for example. The "right" they discuss is a right of "the people" as a whole.

Again, I don't mean that the founders didn't think individuals should be able to own guns -- the need for that at the time was so obvious that it was not worth mentioning! Nor, once again, would they even have been able to imagine e.g. a multi-shot repeating rifle -- let alone an attack weapon of the kind the NRA would now like you to think it should be your right to carry around.

To get what I mean a little more clerly, e.g. take a look at the First Amendment. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The framers considered "freedom of speech" a different matter from "the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." Every individual has "freedom of speech." The other is a "right of the people" -- it is in respect of something they would do together. As a people, in their free states (the ex-colonies) they have the right to form militias (i.e. "to keep and bear arms"). & as a people, they have the right to peaceably assemble.

The framers felt they needed to articulate the freedom of an individual ("freedom of speech") & also the related freedom "of the people" ("the right of the people peaceably to asemble, etc.").

So, if you really do want the Constitution to be interpreted based on original intention, I'm afraid you are going to become an enemy of the NRA, aren't you?

Interesting. So you're saying you either believe in the 2nd amendment, as currently interpreted, and that the Constitution is a living document. Or you believe in original intent of the founding fathers, in which case it's perfectly legal to ban guns not typically used by a militia, i.e. everything but muskets.

One could take it in that direction. But, I had two other points in mind, the second of which bears on this claim.

My point #1 is that most quasi-theoretical stuff about the Constitution resolves to what the person *wants* to see in the world: you want guns in everybody's hands (at least everybody who wants one), then you'll find a way to view the Constitution that supports your desire. That's way over-simplified of course -- but even put as baldly as that it covers a lot of so-called "Constitutional" thinking.

Point #2 is that in the First Amendment the framers outlined two kinds of "right" -- an individual right (which every person holds simply by virtue of being an individual) & a second kind of right a "right of the people." That they make this distinction can't be missed; it is clear in the language of the amendment (though I wouldn't say that the terms of the distinction are equally clear). Then, in the Second Amendment the framers explicitly call "the right... to bear arms" a right of that second kind, a "right of the people" & not, therefore, an individual right.

IOW, the right to bear arms is not an individual right like free speech; it's a right of the people like the right to peaceably assemble. I can't see any way to doubt this from the language of the amendment. Especially given that the Second Amendment was written at the same time as the First & as part of the same project on Jefferson's part to establish a "Bill of Rights" (i.e. the full menu).

Am I therefore saying, as you put it, that the Constitution makes it "perfectly legal to ban guns not typically used by a militia, i.e. everything but muskets"?

A person could easily claim that was entailed by the point I make just above. But, I don't think the claim would be valid.

It would be simpler & truer to say that the issue of an individual owning a gun -- ok or not ok? -- was completely invisible to the framers. Few people lived in cities; most people lived off the land. A gun was something a person had as a necessity not a right. It was more like a hoe or a hammer or a cooking pot than the way we think of guns now.

Did the Constitution need to establish the specific "right" of an individual to own a hoe? Obviously not.

But, of course, conditions have changed and what "a gun" is has changed. To me at least it seems obvious that there is no constitutional barrier to regulating gun ownership.

[payitforward]

When I set aside my irrational hatred of guns from my childhood traumatizing event, it's obvious that there is an externality to society associated with widespread gun ownership - for example, police *have* to assume they could die at any moment, because the entire country is awash in guns, handguns in particular. Also, the widespread ownership of handguns means it is much easier in the United States than elsewhere for teenage kids to commit suicide. I think we can all agree that these are bad things. And there is a solution - estimate the "non-internalized" costs of gun ownership nationwide, and add a Pigouvian tax to gun sales that is high enough to force people buying guns to consider the added costs they are imposing on the rest of us by buying a gun. Handguns cost about $500 - I imagine a tax on the order of cigarettes would be approximately correct, so add on, say, another $500 to that. You can't set the tax too high because people will start circumventing it, so something reasonably high but not prohibitively so. Then use the revenue generated to fund buyback programs and start melting guns down to scrap. Or whatever is the cheapest way to get rid of old guns. The goal isn't to ban guns entirely but just reduce the overall inventory to a manageable level, so cops at least don't have to be afraid for their life every time they pull someone over. And a kid who wants to kill himself doesn't have a 100% chance of having a friend who's dad keeps a gun unsecured under his bed.

Or localities where guns are particularly problematic can set their own taxes. I think that's perilous because you can't guarantee they won't try to charge a prohibitive tax.

These "externalities" as you call them are precisely the reason to regulate... anything! Including guns.

At the same time, b/c we are unlikely to be smart enough to see all externalities (some can be positive, of course) of any issue, & are certainly not smart enough to have a 100% understanding of the full truth about any one of them, or about their interaction, we need to be careful about how we regulate stuff. (side note to Popper: the preceding sentence is an example of a *conservative* position)

[dckingsfan]

When I set aside my irrational hatred of guns from my childhood traumatizing event, it's obvious that there is an externality to society associated with widespread gun ownership - for example, police *have* to assume they could die at any moment, because the entire country is awash in guns, handguns in particular. Also, the widespread ownership of handguns means it is much easier in the United States than elsewhere for teenage kids to commit suicide. I think we can all agree that these are bad things. And there is a solution - estimate the "non-internalized" costs of gun ownership nationwide, and add a Pigouvian tax to gun sales that is high enough to force people buying guns to consider the added costs they are imposing on the rest of us by buying a gun. Handguns cost about $500 - I imagine a tax on the order of cigarettes would be approximately correct, so add on, say, another $500 to that. You can't set the tax too high because people will start circumventing it, so something reasonably high but not prohibitively so. Then use the revenue generated to fund buyback programs and start melting guns down to scrap. Or whatever is the cheapest way to get rid of old guns. The goal isn't to ban guns entirely but just reduce the overall inventory to a manageable level, so cops at least don't have to be afraid for their life every time they pull someone over. And a kid who wants to kill himself doesn't have a 100% chance of having a friend who's dad keeps a gun unsecured under his bed.

Or localities where guns are particularly problematic can set their own taxes. I think that's perilous because you can't guarantee they won't try to charge a prohibitive tax.

These "externalities" as you call them are precisely the reason to regulate... anything! Including guns.

At the same time, b/c we are unlikely to be smart enough to see all externalities (some can be positive, of course) of any issue, & are certainly not smart enough to have a 100% understanding of the full truth about any one of them, or about their interaction, we need to be careful about how we regulate stuff. (side note to Popper: the preceding sentence is an example of a *conservative* position)

Isn't that what Zonk is advocating - but with a twist, regulating with a tax vs. just a flat regulation? Cigarettes would be a good example - it seems to have worked pretty well here?