Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"?

[BitMos]

private insurance, you want it you have it. you don't have it, you will pay, later... but at least we have a debt for the service provided.

[1715243179]

1715243179

[1715243179]

1715243179

[1715243179]

1715243179

[Elwar]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

[BitMos]

easy those that have money. Marxism 101.

[Fatman3001]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

[Fatman3001]

easy those that have money. Marxism 101.

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

[Elwar]

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

So...you are promoting theft.

[Spendulus]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem is that the US doesn´t have free health care?

Who will be providing this free health care?

Different countries have different systems. Some have state-run hospitals, others have private hospitals who have to conform to a national health insurance. This is neither revolutionary or new.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

Why would you be ashamed of taking other peoples' money for your opinion of the best ways for them to spend it?

Actually, come to think of it.  When those other people can easily refute your arguments such as "this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars" and "it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil", then you really should have second thoughts about your personal ability to opine the right to take their money.

Because they do seem better able to do that that you, don't they?

[jaysabi]

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

Most countries force you to buy some kind of car insurance to make sure that you can cover the costs if you screw up.

The difference here is you don't have to have a car. If you have a car, you don't have to drive it. If you have a car, and you drive it, you have to have insurance. That's not the same as health insurance, where you have to have it, period.

If you get a treatable illness and don´t have health insurance it can have seriously adverse consequences for you, your family and/or your community. Not to mention that if enough people are without coverage it will eventually have a seriously negative effect on that nations GDP. 

No argument here. I agree with you. But that's not the point of my concern. The question is it moral to force someone to buy something they don't want.

When you ask "is it moral[?]" you can view it from a utilitarian point of view: definitely, everyone is better off.

If everyone is better off, everyone would already have it. Clearly, the people who don't want to buy it think they're better off without it.

A kantian view: Well, it is by no means tyrannical and every individual is morally obliged to get some kind of coverage out of respect for their own life and the lives of others.

I actually directly disagree with you here. It is tyrannical to force someone to do something they don't want to do. The use of force by the government to enforce its will against the unwilling is tyranny. As for "is everyone morally obliged to get some coverage out of respect for their community," this may a question worth exploring.

The US of A, although proudly capitalist, is not a particularly liberal country. Just about every sector is subsidized, shielded with protectionist trade barriers or otherwise blissfully safe from the fiddlings of the invisible hand.

Agreed, but then again, that's not very capitalist either. Or perhaps it's "capitalist" but not free-market. Either way, it's corrupted capitalism; crony capitalism.

Most modern liberals (referred to, by some, as social liberals) will concede that much of early classical thinking is not well suited to a modern society and that a society where the majority is part of the upper middle class the benefits of everyone being covered by some kind of health care plan far outweighs the negative bits.

On the whole, I can see this argument. Individual sacrifice for the common good is classical republicanism, but forced sacrifice isn't noble. Where do you draw the line between letting people decide what is best for the community and forcing the unwilling to comply? Just health care? What about income inequality? Surely it's bad for the society to have so many working poor, so maybe income redistribution is a necessary evil for the greater good. Prohibition is a classic example of a failed "for the common good" initiative. I would say the prohibition on drugs is proving the same.

However, classical liberals (libertarians) are not very well represented in american politics. The main explanation for why "Obamacare" is seen as such a disaster is because GOP wants to paint it that way. Why? 1. Because after Bush Jr. they need to make people think that the democrats and their president is somehow worse. 2. Because Obama represents the kind of social liberalism that roughly 90% of GOP voters would benefit immensely from, and if they realize this then the GOP is doomed. When Billy Ray Junior The Third stands on the barricade screaming his lounges off for the right to remain uninsured he is either too dumb to even operate a door or he is being manipulated(or both).

I agree here. Republican opposition to Obamacare isn't about what's good for the country. It's about what's good for Republicans. And what's good for Republicans is for Democrats to fail, because in the next election, you'll still only have two choices: a Democrat or a Republican. So the majority of American politics is painting the other side as evil or stupid because then you're the only choice left. This is why both fight so hard to keep third parties off the ballot.

[BitMos]

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

Social Darwinist? meaning the survival of the fittest in the realm of economics with a central bank? LoL ROFL... & much more... please... grow up. The problem is that you have to be able to predict all the future to be able to declare what is the fittest. I don't have this ability. Furthermore, you can come from apes, if you like, I don't. Taxes, did I agreed on them? Myself I always have the same message, support the troops, home front and abroad, it's tuff. Then if I have to pay for you, to have something from my pocket, that my children, because of you having it, will not have, I have to disagree. My children benefit from the performances of the Force. Thank you.

jaysabi, I must applaud you. Sublime post. You defeated him brilliantly. I am lovin it.

[Fatman3001]

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

So...you are promoting theft.

That is just childish. Despite what some of the right-wing anarchists(?!?!) may think, without the state there is no property rights, and without taxation there is no state. Unfortunately for you the state decides what is theft.

[Fatman3001]

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

Social Darwinist? meaning the survival of the fittest in the realm of economics with a central bank? LoL ROFL... & much more... please... grow up. The problem is that you have to be able to predict all the future to be able to declare what is the fittest. I don't have this ability. Furthermore, you can come from apes, if you like, I don't. Taxes, did I agreed on them? Myself I always have the same message, support the troops, home front and abroad, it's tuff. Then if I have to pay for you, to have something from my pocket, that my children, because of you having it, will not have, I have to disagree. My children benefit from the performances of the Force. Thank you.

jaysabi, I must applaud you. Sublime post. You defeated him brilliantly. I am lovin it.

Good for you, may the force be with you!

[Elwar]

That is just childish. Despite what some of the right-wing anarchists(?!?!) may think, without the state there is no property rights, and without taxation there is no state. Unfortunately for you the state decides what is theft.

in other words, because the state has the power...they can decide if taking by force is theft or not.

This is true, otherwise known as survival of the fittest (darwinism).

[Fatman3001]

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

Most countries force you to buy some kind of car insurance to make sure that you can cover the costs if you screw up.

The difference here is you don't have to have a car. If you have a car, you don't have to drive it. If you have a car, and you drive it, you have to have insurance. That's not the same as health insurance, where you have to have it, period.

If you get a treatable illness and don´t have health insurance it can have seriously adverse consequences for you, your family and/or your community. Not to mention that if enough people are without coverage it will eventually have a seriously negative effect on that nations GDP. 

No argument here. I agree with you. But that's not the point of my concern. The question is it moral to force someone to buy something they don't want.

When you ask "is it moral[?]" you can view it from a utilitarian point of view: definitely, everyone is better off.

[1]If everyone is better off, everyone would already have it. Clearly, the people who don't want to buy it think they're better off without it.

A kantian view: Well, it is by no means tyrannical and every individual is morally obliged to get some kind of coverage out of respect for their own life and the lives of others.

[2]I actually directly disagree with you here. It is tyrannical to force someone to do something they don't want to do. The use of force by the government to enforce its will against the unwilling is tyranny. As for "is everyone morally obliged to get some coverage out of respect for their community," this may a question worth exploring.

The US of A, although proudly capitalist, is not a particularly liberal country. Just about every sector is subsidized, shielded with protectionist trade barriers or otherwise blissfully safe from the fiddlings of the invisible hand.

Agreed, but then again, that's not very capitalist either. Or perhaps it's "capitalist" but not free-market. Either way, it's corrupted capitalism; crony capitalism.

Most modern liberals (referred to, by some, as social liberals) will concede that much of early classical thinking is not well suited to a modern society and that a society where the majority is part of the upper middle class the benefits of everyone being covered by some kind of health care plan far outweighs the negative bits.

On the whole, I can see this argument. Individual sacrifice for the common good is classical republicanism, but forced sacrifice isn't noble. Where do you draw the line between letting people decide what is best for the community and forcing the unwilling to comply? Just health care? What about income inequality? Surely it's bad for the society to have so many working poor, so maybe income redistribution is a necessary evil for the greater good. Prohibition is a classic example of a failed "for the common good" initiative. I would say the prohibition on drugs is proving the same.

However, classical liberals (libertarians) are not very well represented in american politics. The main explanation for why "Obamacare" is seen as such a disaster is because GOP wants to paint it that way. Why? 1. Because after Bush Jr. they need to make people think that the democrats and their president is somehow worse. 2. Because Obama represents the kind of social liberalism that roughly 90% of GOP voters would benefit immensely from, and if they realize this then the GOP is doomed. When Billy Ray Junior The Third stands on the barricade screaming his lounges off for the right to remain uninsured he is either too dumb to even operate a door or he is being manipulated(or both).

I agree here. Republican opposition to Obamacare isn't about what's good for the country. It's about what's good for Republicans. And what's good for Republicans is for Democrats to fail, because in the next election, you'll still only have two choices: a Democrat or a Republican. So the majority of American politics is painting the other side as evil or stupid because then you're the only choice left. This is why both fight so hard to keep third parties off the ballot.

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

[Fatman3001]

That is just childish. Despite what some of the right-wing anarchists(?!?!) may think, without the state there is no property rights, and without taxation there is no state. Unfortunately for you the state decides what is theft.

in other words, because the state has the power...they can decide if taking by force is theft or not.

This is true, otherwise known as survival of the fittest (darwinism).

No, it has nothing to do with darwinism or social darwinism. It has to do with the legal and institutional framework required for your rights to exist in any intelligible way.

[Elwar]

No, it has nothing to do with darwinism or social darwinism. It has to do with the legal and institutional framework required for your rights to exist in any intelligible way.

I am born free. I do not need a legal and institutional framework to give me that freedom.

When you realize that your rights do not come from the government but in spite of it, then you will have a glimpse into what true freedom is all about.

[Fatman3001]

No, it has nothing to do with darwinism or social darwinism. It has to do with the legal and institutional framework required for your rights to exist in any intelligible way.

I am born free. I do not need a legal and institutional framework to give me that freedom.

When you realize that your rights do not come from the government but in spite of it, then you will have a glimpse into what true freedom is all about.

Just out of curiosity: Are you a right-wing anarchist or a socialist anarchist?

BTW: I am not from any part of the world where the word socialist is equated with fascism.

[Elwar]

Just out of curiosity: Are you a right-wing anarchist or a socialist anarchist?

BTW: I am not from any part of the world where the word socialist is equated with fascism.

I am an individual.

[BitMos]

I am an individual.

Dear Fatman, you are meeting one of my Teacher, could you please understand the chance you have to speak to such a Being. Thank you very much Elwar. I loved to read you here. It's so refreshing, it's so full of Faith in yourself, and as an extension in Mankind. Thank you very much.

Fatman you seems to be wanting to categorize anything in group, ideas, it's a waste of brain time. we are individuals born free by the Will of the Creator of the Universe, each of US unique but so close in shape and form. There isn't 2 human Being equal (or the same), with all our differences we can do great parties, hope to find the perfect imperfection in the other that complementarily will make both together perfect to fulfill our own potential that we all have in us. As soon as you force a Human Being you have to understand that you may be against the Path that God had chosen for this individual. You have to accept that none of my words are rigid or definite, it's just trying to cope with the creation of God, which is beyond the grasp of all of us combined. How many grains of dust in the Universe? How many drops of water in the Universe? Learning to love perfectly the perfect one for you is much more valuable on a finite life span. I did try to help you. Try to learn to breath and then maybe to pray.

Forcing someone to let money out for something which he doesn't want is THEFT. 101.

ex: I force you to buy my shit. so I get your BTC you get my shit. I make it law, it's legal. Do you want to do such things before your exit time? Some do... it's never an excuse. And don't worry making mistakes isn't bad, as long as you want to move toward the most beautiful ending that you could achieve, however and let me warn you, personally I think it's hard, and almost requires full time... And so when I have to waste my limited time on paying for someone else what ever, you understand that I can feel really depressed since it removes me from the time I could have shared in learning to love.

I don't think there is a point in me answering anymore, as you see it's way beyond politic or any physical matters.

Peace (and love, and flowers  )

[Fatman3001]

Just out of curiosity: Are you a right-wing anarchist or a socialist anarchist?

BTW: I am not from any part of the world where the word socialist is equated with fascism.

I am an individual.

ie. you don´t know or you don´t want people to know. Fair enough.

[Fatman3001]

I am an individual.

Dear Fatman, you are meeting one of my Teacher, could you please understand the chance you have to speak to such a Being. Thank you very much Elwar. I loved to read you here. It's so refreshing, it's so full of Faith in yourself, and as an extension in Mankind. Thank you very much.

Fatman you seems to be wanting to categorize anything in group, ideas, it's a waste of brain time. we are individuals born free by the Will of the Creator of the Universe, each of US unique but so close in shape and form. There isn't 2 human Being equal (or the same), with all our differences we can do great parties, hope to find the perfect imperfection in the other that complementarily will make both together perfect to fulfill our own potential that we all have in us. As soon as you force a Human Being you have to understand that you may be against the Path that God had chosen for this individual. You have to accept that none of my words are rigid or definite, it's just trying to cope with the creation of God, which is beyond the grasp of all of us combined. How many grains of dust in the Universe? How many drops of water in the Universe? Learning to love perfectly the perfect one for you is much more valuable on a finite life span. I did try to help you. Try to learn to breath and then maybe to pray.

Forcing someone to let money out for something which he doesn't want is THEFT. 101.

ex: I force you to buy my shit. so I get your BTC you get my shit. I make it law, it's legal. Do you want to do such things before your exit time? Some do... it's never an excuse. And don't worry making mistakes isn't bad, as long as you want to move toward the most beautiful ending that you could achieve, however and let me warn you, personally I think it's hard, and almost requires full time... And so when I have to waste my limited time on paying for someone else what ever, you understand that I can feel really depressed since it removes me from the time I could have shared in learning to love.

I don't think there is a point in me answering anymore, as you see it's way beyond politic or any physical matters.

Peace (and love, and flowers  )

Ah, I see! You are both anti-rationalists. How dumb do I feel? Yes I guess I do want to make people fit into categories in a way, not perfectly, but enough to understand them. I, like most, naturally react to inconsistencies so I see how that can be annoying to you. You don´t have to accept the label I have given you but it sure makes me feel better to have figured this out. It´s kind of like solving a bunch of lines in tetris with one piece.