Politics

[Ndaccountant]

I think this is a fair question and it is something that those against obamacare have made repeatedly after the law was passed. I believe it is a hollow argument, however. In the nearly 50 years that led up to the passing of the ACA, the government did exactly nothing to bring about the types of changes that you are talking about here. That is largely because the right was always there to defelect any attempts to fix the mounting problems with skyrocketing costs. Eventually it became clear that any attempt to sew a workable plan together one piece at a time was going to mean a knock-down, drag-out fight every single time. Politically, it just became clear that it was easier to have one big fight instead of 100 big fights when the conditions were set for victory. Where others have failed in getting a more comprehensive plan through the system (Clinton), Obama succeeded and I think we would have forgotten about this discussion already if his administration didn't fumble so badly on the initial implementation of the law. As I have said in several posts over the past couple of weeks in this thread, the various pieces that make up Obamacare are very popular ideas, but it would have been a protracted war to make any more than a piece or two at a time into policy, let alone something that is more comprehensive. At the end of the day, lets be honest, this is a program to give poor people access to healthcare. Some would argue (and it is people on the left and the right who would do so) that this access comes at the expense of richer Americans. Heck, Bill Mahr called it a "Robin Hood program" months ago. I think that is accurate. What it really comes down to is whether you are for it being a Robin Hood program or against it. I personally am OK with it. Would it have been easier to target the problems that existed in the old system one at a time? Maybe, but I just don't think the political atmosphere would have allowed it.

I don't disagree but the "rich" in this case really aren't all that "rich", at least if you go by Obama's arbitrary number of $250K (from all of the tax debates). Now, depending on your filing status, you may be rich if you make over $45K. From the studies I have read, depending on filing status, family making between $45-$95K may be eligible for subsidies, but not guaranteed.

 

[Ndaccountant]

we have disagreed on this subject many times, because I think that mixing profit motive with what I view as a funamental human right is in contrast to a system that could possibly function properly. The last think I care about when I'm sick is who is going to profit from it. That said, I think your explanation is spot on -- even if it is describing a system that offers no chance of ever working.

The problem is that even Dr's have a profit motive. There are a few Dr's in my family and many of the guys I went to school with are currently Dr's. Their reaction is all the same. The want to help people, but they want to make sure their family and life are taken care of first, which includes paying off all that debt they collected over the years. So, the profit motive of insurance companies may be off, but as long as insurance exists, there will be pressure on them to perform.

IMO, the best thing would be to scrap ALL insurance but catastrophic coverage, force all doctors to move to cash only (except the catastrophic care) and give tax credits to individuals so they can afford their own care. The article below sums up how this could work and how much money would be saved by simply eliminating insurance.

Direct Primary Care - Cash Only Doctors Say No to Your Health Insurance - AARP

 

[irishpat183]

An increasingly larger number of people in this country cannot afford to pay a lot for the service. Jesus, Pat, everything with you is so cut and dried. You come off like a dumb, cold, uncaring dude. I'm pretty sure you are none of those things, so I'm so confounded by your lack of perspective on anyone else's circumstances but your own. We live in a collective society, not as a massive civilization of individuals who fall or fail on their own merit evenly distributed across the spectrum. Some people were born a million miles from a position from which they can make their way in the world. They need help. It is not just about you and what you want. There are millions of people who would be helped by socialized medicine, and you are willing to say, fvck them as long as I get mine. I simply refuse to believe you are that heartless and mean. I've defended you countless times in this thread and in others because I appreciate your candor and willingness to put your opinion out there no matter if it is popular or not, but it seems to me that this blunt persona you've created for yourself has overtaken any sense of humanity.

So...you pass a bill in which nobody can sign up and the people that are supposed to carry the load can't afford?

Tell me again, what ****ing problem does the ACA solve?? LOL


And by the way...under the old system...85% of our pop was covered and nobody was ever turned away. It worked fantastically. Did it need some changes?? YES!!! We agree there!! (Like the pre-existing conditions problems) but the ACA will never work. It can't. Because the young, 27 yr old making 40k a year can't afford the prems to carry the illegal immigrant and the old guy. It's just a FACT. And we're seeing it with the low sign ups.

Where are all those idealistic young liberals that were praying for the ACA?

 

[irishpat183]

we have disagreed on this subject many times, because I think that mixing profit motive with what I view as a funamental human right is in contrast to a system that could possibly function properly. The last think I care about when I'm sick is who is going to profit from it. That said, I think your explanation is spot on -- even if it is describing a system that offers no chance of ever working.

But it's not a "fundamental human right". That's where your logic is just wrong.

Because it takes the labor of another.


So I'm now ENTITLED to the labor of another because I view it as a "fundamental right"??

Let's call our Drs and ask them if they'd like to be slaves?

 

[ACamp1900]

But it's not a "fundamental human right". That's where your logic is just wrong.

Because it takes the labor of another.

.

 

[irishpat183]

But it's not a "fundamental human right". That's where your logic is just wrong.

Because it takes the labor of another.


So I'm now ENTITLED to the labor of another because I view it as a "fundamental right"??

Let's call our Drs and ask them if they'd like to be slaves?

.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[philipm31]

I haven't been to San Fran, so I can't speak to where it falls on the awesome scale. It's been awhile for Boston, but I liked what I remember. I agree that most of this is the electorate's fault for not being more aware and vigilant and holding politicos responsible. I can't disagree that Obama is better salesman/politician than what the GOP has offered. And that's saying something, because Obama is terrible as both a politician and a salesman.

I'm not just saying that because I am knuckle-dragging right-wing nut job either. I give credit where it is due (Bill Clinton). But Obama's political skills are middling at best. He can give a great canned speech, but he has an obvious distaste for dealing with the rough and tumble of political sausage making. Obama is great when he is being fawned over by his fans, but once the going gets rough, he turns into an exasperated, arrogant finger waver who can't be bothered to deal with those who dare question him.

That is even MORE apparent about politicians when their speeches ARE planned, Obama, McCain, or otherwise, sadly.

 

[phgreek]

the conversation I was replying to had to do with polling numbers. The leaping from one line of thought to the next -- politics to policy -- on this board can be difficult to follow. While I certainly fully agree with the sentiment of this law, that had little to do with my response. I fully agree that this law has been very poorly implemented so far and that certainly adds to the unhappiness that people have with it. That is fully on Obama and his administration. That said, what the polling indicates is a lack of understanding by people being polled about what the law is. It's pieces are all good, but it is not popular as the sum of its parts.

...looked to me like an interpretation of the poll...and I provided mine

When people poll well against components, but poorly against the entire thing...the issue is illuminated fairly well to me... and that's what I said....that the poll numbers line up with what we've been saying.

 

[GoIrish41]

But it's not a "fundamental human right". That's where your logic is just wrong.

Because it takes the labor of another.


So I'm now ENTITLED to the labor of another because I view it as a "fundamental right"??

Let's call our Drs and ask them if they'd like to be slaves?

It takes the labor of another? What the heck does that even mean? Are you saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to drive on roads or have the garbage removed from in front of their homes? Lots of things are paid for in this country from the labor of another. That is what we pay taxes for. You might want to tighten up your talking point.

In England, doctors work for the government in government-run hospitals and clinics and paitents get their medicines from government-run pharmacies. Doctors are re-imbursed by the government to pay for their schooling when they take a job in one of these public sector jobs. They live on the eighth green at the local country club and send their kids to private schools driving new BMWs, but they live comfortably. Why can't we do that here? There is too much private profit built into the healthcare system -- doctors who make gobs of money, and pharm companies and insurance companies with multi-million dollar CEOs and insane payrolls -- and that more than anything else drives up the cost for everyone.

 

[ACamp1900]

Last I checked if you don't pay your trash bill you won't be serviced, and if you don’t pay your registration your car will be impounded… because none of these are 'fundamental human rights'... tighten up talking points indeed.

 

[Cackalacky]

But it's not a "fundamental human right". That's where your logic is just wrong.

Because it takes the labor of another.


So I'm now ENTITLED to the labor of another because I view it as a "fundamental right"??

Let's call our Drs and ask them if they'd like to be slaves?

I think this argument is false for many reasons but one of the major reasons is ...can you define a fundamental human right? Who makes the definition? Is it a politically defined one? Is it a religiously defined one. Who decides which ones are to be kept and which ones are not? Do other people on this planet adhere to that? Which one's do they subscribe too?

When you boil it down we adhere to social contracts (mostly anyway) of varying types.
I myself see it this way:
<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=EemYmeQpCpUC&lpg=PA8&ots=ZoGz17q243&dq=New%20Scientist%20oath%201971&pg=PA8&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

 

[GoIrish41]

Last I checked if you don't pay your trash bill you won't be serviced, and if you don’t pay your registration your car will be impounded… because none of these are 'fundamental human rights'... tighten up talking points indeed.

I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live, the "trash bill" is covered in local taxes. I didn't say anything about car registrations, but I talked about utilizing the public roads, which were paid for by the "labor of others." What difference does it make if driving or having your trash taken out are fundamental human rights? They are services paid for by "the labor of others" which Pat says cannot or should not happen, yet they are as common a practice as turning the faucet and water coming out. The point I was making about rights is how unthinkable it is to even consider the notion of not providing health coverage to poor people simply because they are poor. But you knew that already.

 

[irishpat183]

I think this argument is false for many reasons but one of the major reasons is ...can you define a fundamental human right? Who makes the definition? Is it a politically defined one? Is it a religiously defined one. Who decides which ones are to be kept and which ones are not? Do other people on this planet adhere to that? Which one's do they subscribe too?

When you boil it down we adhere to social contracts (mostly anyway) of varying types.
I myself see it this way:
<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=EemYmeQpCpUC&lpg=PA8&ots=ZoGz17q243&dq=New%20Scientist%20oath%201971&pg=PA8&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

So liberals crying for health insurance are allowed to determine what a human right is? And a "fundamental human right" cannot, CANNOT be something at the expense of another. Can't you see the fundamental problem with that???

And where did we sign the "social contract"? A "scientist Oath"...cute.

 

[ACamp1900]

If you insist you can't define a ' fundamental human right' then lets stop using the term altogether.

I believe it's pretty simple though, something that is yours upon existence… that is from you and of you that should not be impeded on by others… and vice versa. We are talking basic freedoms. Making someone else pay for and then perform services for you it’s not even close imo… childishly so.

 

[ACamp1900]

What difference does it make if driving or having your trash taken out are fundamental human rights?

You compared them to health care, which you called a basic human right...

 

[irishpat183]

I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live, the "trash bill" is covered in local taxes. I didn't say anything about car registrations, but I talked about utilizing the public roads, which were paid for by the "labor of others." What difference does it make if driving or having your trash taken out are fundamental human rights? They are services paid for by "the labor of others" which Pat says cannot or should not happen, yet they are as common a practice as turning the faucet and water coming out. The point I was making about rights is how unthinkable it is to even consider the notion of not providing health coverage to poor people simply because they are poor. But you knew that already.

Their class has nothing to do with it. There are rich people without health coverage as well for a variety of reasons.

Driving isn't not a fundamental human right. Neither are roads.

Dude...you just don't get it...

Self determination, thought, speech, pursuit of happiness......

 

[irishpat183]

If you insist you can't define a ' fundamental human right' then lets stop using the term altogether.

I believe it's pretty simple though, something that is yours upon existence… that is from you and of you that should not be impeded on by others… and vice versa. We are talking basic freedoms. Making someone else pay for and then perform services for you it’s not even close imo… childishly so.

Taking from someone that makes money, and giving it to someone that doesn't (sub in food, or shelter) is the total opposite of human rights, I'd say.

According to a liberals view of "fundamental human rights"...My own money should fall under that, right? I earned it. Why the hell should I give ANY to anyone else?

 

[Cackalacky]

So liberals crying for health insurance? And a "fundamental human right" cannot, CANNOT be something at the expense of another. Can't you see the fundamental problem with that???

And where did we sign the "social contract"? A "scientist Oath"...cute.

Define fundamental human right as it applies today, or yesterday, or 100 years ago or 100 years into the future.

The constitution of the United States is a social contract. And it evolves. Religious texts set out other examples.

My example is what I think humans require as necessities, not saying that is actually the case.

 

[ACamp1900]

Taking from someone that makes money, and giving it to someone that doesn't (sub in food, or shelter) is the total opposite of human rights, I'd say.

Completely agree... and I'll just leave it at that, because if I really say what I think about that notion I may offend posters I generally get along well with...

 

[GoIrish41]

You compared them to health care, which you called a basic human right...

I didn't compare them to health care. I was pointing out that Pat's comment about how people cannot benefit from other peoples' labor was silly.

 

[irishpat183]

I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live, the "trash bill" is covered in local taxes. I didn't say anything about car registrations, but I talked about utilizing the public roads, which were paid for by the "labor of others." What difference does it make if driving or having your trash taken out are fundamental human rights? They are services paid for by "the labor of others" which Pat says cannot or should not happen, yet they are as common a practice as turning the faucet and water coming out. The point I was making about rights is how unthinkable it is to even consider the notion of not providing health coverage to poor people simply because they are poor. But you knew that already.

You're not ENTITLED to anything that is a labor of someone else. You can purchase it. Or bargin, trade....etc.

But you can't walk up to a doctor and say "treat me because I'm human and you have too". (he can refuse if he WANTS because he decides what he wants to do with his labor(despite that Hippocratic oath thingy)

 

[irishpat183]

I didn't compare them to health care. I was pointing out that Pat's comment about how people cannot benefit from other peoples' labor was silly.

That's not at all what I said.

 

[irishpat183]

Define fundamental human right as it applies today, or yesterday, or 100 years ago or 100 years into the future.

The constitution of the United States is a social contract. And it evolves. Religious texts set out other examples.

My example is what I think humans require as necessities, not saying that is actually the case.

That's not what it is. It was designed as protection from overreaching government and limiting it's authority....

What someone requires (food, shelter, health care) doesn't make it a right. I see your point...but should we just tell home builders that they won't be paid for building houses because they are a right? Or farmers that grow food? Or stores that sell them?

When you start down the "it's my right" path...that's what happens. Fundamental rights should be, limited to the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. Fundamental rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to labor of others


"The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else."


Game. Blouses. Again.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

That's not what it is. It was designed as protection from overreaching government and limiting it's authority.

What someone requires (food, shelter, health care) doesn't make it a right. I see your point...but should we just tell home builders that they won't be paid for building houses because they are a right? Or farmers that grow food? Or stores that sell them?

When you start down the "it's my right" path...that's what happens. Fundamental rights should be, limited

Right. In most cases (this thread included), when people say "fundamental human right" they're really just saying "in my view the government should pay for this". But philosophically it's hollow.

 

[irishpat183]

Right. In most cases (this thread included), when people say "fundamental human right" they're really just saying "in my view the government should pay for this". But philosophically it's hollow.

Yep. I actually added more to my comment to clarify....

 

[BobD]

Different angle: So, everyone is ok with auto insurance being mandatory in most places, but not health insurance?

 

[Cackalacky]

That's not what it is. It was designed as protection from overreaching government and limiting it's authority....

What someone requires (food, shelter, health care) doesn't make it a right. I see your point...but should we just tell home builders that they won't be paid for building houses because they are a right? Or farmers that grow food? Or stores that sell them?

When you start down the "it's my right" path...that's what happens. Fundamental rights should be, limited to the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. Fundamental rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to labor of others


"The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else."


Game. Blouses. Again.

It is a social contract. Sorry brother. Albeit a simple one.
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics

The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively.

The social contract is very simple. It has only two basic terms: (1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision by deliberative assembly. There are no agents, no officials, that persist from one deliberative assembly to another. The duties of the social contract are militia. There may be customs that persist from assembly to assembly, such as customs for due notice, parliamentary procedure, judicial due process, and enforcement of court orders by militia. This second term could be called the constitution of society, but it precedes a constitution of government and should not be confused with it.There is also a constitution of nature that precedes both the constitution of society and the constitution of government. It is also convenient to speak of a constitution of the state that follows the constitution of society and precedes the constitution of government. It arises after a society is created (by adopting the social contract), and after it acquires exclusive dominion over a well-defined territory. That is when we get things like a right to remain at and to return to one's birthplace, which makes no sense for a society with no territory (such as nomads).

A constitution of government, such as the Constitution of 1787, is the next step in the development. It is to establish institutions, offices, procedures, duties, and structures that persist from one assembly to another that are not just customs. It is at that point that we begin to get things like laws, and paid agents and officials, whose jobs continue beyond transient assemblies. We also get taxes, standing armies, and professional law enforcers.

Such pooled powers are generally exercised by delegating them to some members of the society to act as agents for the members of the society as a whole, and to do so within a framework of structure and procedures that is a government. No such government may exercise any powers not thus delegated to it, or do so in a way that is not consistent with established structures or procedures defined by a basic law which is called the constitution.

 

[irishpat183]

It is a social contract. Sorry brother. Albeit a simple one.
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics

And that is a fantastic opinion. I'm just using the words of the actual documents themselves. I'm not trying to change it up to meet my needs.

You cannot, have a right to anyone else's labor. That equals slavery.

Unless youre ok with slavery.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Different angle: So, everyone is ok with auto insurance being mandatory in most places, but not health insurance?

For me? Yes. Car insurance isn't "mandatory" like it is under PPACA -- under Obamacare you have to buy a plan because you are alive. Car insurance, by contrast, is a necessary condition of driving a car on a public road, but if you really hate car insurance all you have to do is not drive a car.

 

[irishpat183]

Here is a great read on the social contract myth and why it's slowly destroying us:

The myth of "Consent of the Governed" - Bandholz.com