|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 24 2012 06:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:
[quote]
Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world.
How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die. Conservatives are only at the top? Really? Either we have very different definitions of what healthcare is, or you are delusional. If you went back in human history and removed all types of healthcare that have ever existed, do you really think humanity would be alive today? And stop with the logical fallacies. They make you sound like a prick. I never said that conservatives were only at the top. "Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are." Using the wiki definition which I agree with "Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans.' whats yours? Humans would absolutely be alive without healthcare. How is that a fallacy?
If humans never had any kind of healthcare, injuries of any kind would go untreated. Nothing is bandaged, nothing cleaned, we don't even get folk treatments for ailments. You really think that humanity would have survived with none of this?
And just because I refer to the fact that many conservatives are very well off (which is historically true) doesn't mean that I said they are exclusively at the top. Pretty simple concept.
nono ur right, its very logical to have rights in the way that they positively affect us. the point is that neither tried to argue that rights exisit in actuallity, and that humans by being humans do posses rights. humans have rights because we feel it is in line with our best sensibilities so we ought have them and enforce them. We do not enforce and defend them becuase we feel humans naturally posses them since one can not seem to give a logical arguement of why this may be the case, whether or not if its true.
I don't see how it isn't logical to protect freedom based on natural freedoms. Americans value these freedoms every day simply because they don't want the government to take them away - we have this idea that we should have these freedoms simply because they exist (we should only give up freedoms detrimental to others, like the freedom to preemptively kill someone).
|
On March 24 2012 06:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
[quote]
Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet.
Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring.
Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole.
So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die. Conservatives are only at the top? Really? Either we have very different definitions of what healthcare is, or you are delusional. If you went back in human history and removed all types of healthcare that have ever existed, do you really think humanity would be alive today? And stop with the logical fallacies. They make you sound like a prick. I never said that conservatives were only at the top. "Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are." Using the wiki definition which I agree with "Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans.' whats yours? Humans would absolutely be alive without healthcare. How is that a fallacy? If humans never had any kind of healthcare, injuries of any kind would go untreated. Nothing is bandaged, nothing cleaned, we don't even get folk treatments for ailments. You really think that humanity would have survived with none of this?
Absolutely. Look around you, there are animals, they dont have doctors or healthcare. Would we live as long as we do today without healthcare? Nope. Would quality of life be lower? Yes Would he keel over and die? Absolutely not.
Human body is actually pretty good when it comes to recovery.
|
On March 24 2012 06:21 TATTOO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. nono ur right, its very logical to have rights in the way that they positively affect us. the point is that neither tried to argue that rights exisit in actuallity, and that humans by being humans do posses rights. humans have rights because we feel it is in line with our best sensibilities so we ought have them and enforce them. We do not enforce and defend them becuase we feel humans naturally posses them since one can not seem to give a logical arguement of why this may be the case, whether or not if its true. I'd say it's both logical and sometimes rational to apply variations of what we might call rights based on for example empathy or what we believe is good for everyone(ourselves normally included). Also the type of rights we are discussing require that the rights are given to you, which indicates that the difficulties are semantic issues.
|
On March 24 2012 06:59 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die. Conservatives are only at the top? Really? Either we have very different definitions of what healthcare is, or you are delusional. If you went back in human history and removed all types of healthcare that have ever existed, do you really think humanity would be alive today? And stop with the logical fallacies. They make you sound like a prick. I never said that conservatives were only at the top. "Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are." Using the wiki definition which I agree with "Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans.' whats yours? Humans would absolutely be alive without healthcare. How is that a fallacy? If humans never had any kind of healthcare, injuries of any kind would go untreated. Nothing is bandaged, nothing cleaned, we don't even get folk treatments for ailments. You really think that humanity would have survived with none of this? Absolutely. Look around you, there are animals, they dont have doctors or healthcare. Would we live as long as we do today without healthcare? Nope. Would quality of life be lower? Yes Would he keel over and die? Absolutely not. Human body is actually pretty good when it comes to recovery.
Animals have other evolutionary and biological capacities to deal with disease and injury that we do not. Furthermore, countless animal species have gone extinct without healthcare, so this argument doesn't work. Not only that, you could even argue that some animal species are capable of treating certain ailments and injuries that they receive.
|
|
|
I think Obamacare is one of those things like the New Deal. Piss uninformed people off. 50 years later, "OMG what a genius".
|
|
|
It seems to me that the "conservative" objections to obamacare are sometimes mixed.
One objection is a utilitarian one -- obamacare doesn't actually help those it's meant to help as much as other reforms would.
Another objection is liberty-based (maybe you could call it a deontological view?) -- the government should not do X because X violates moral mandate "1". In this case, "1" is liberty or something along those lines.
It might be that the first objection is true but it seems to me that arguing it is very difficult for at least a couple of reasons. First, predicting the consequences seems hard (maybe it's not, but I can't do it). Plus, defending it along these lines only pushes back, I think, the more fundamental issue. And the fundamental issue can be revealed, I think, by looking at what some of the "on the fence" legislators did when they announced they'd support obamacare -- they brought some random sick kid to capitol hill and then gave a press conference about how they had to "follow their heart" or "conscience" and do the "right thing".
And in this case the right thing according to these legislators, it seems to me, is the idea that it is morally acceptable to take other peoples money, or force people to buy into a system, in order to help out the most vulnerable and needy.
That's why I think to truly argue against obamacare you need to be able to say the opposite of this. That is, you need to be able to say, "Yeah, I know $10,000 dollars could save some child's life, but I don't think a billionaire is morally (or politically) obligated to give that kid the money if he'd rather spend it on hookers and yachts (or a factory or other investment)".
Once you've stated this your in a position to more concretely debate with your opponents. Because now the debate will be about the proper role of government. If the government's proper role is to equalize opportunity (or equalize outcome) then obamacare is justified. If the government's proper rule is to protect property then obamacare is not justified.
From this point, then, I think it's a question of methodology: How do you arrive at the proper role of government? Is the proper role of government simply what the government thinks it's proper role is? Is the proper role of government what the majority thinks it should be? Is the proper role of government what the strongest think it should be?
Behind all of these views must be some reasoning as to why "this or that" is the proper role of government.
|
On March 24 2012 07:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
It seems to me that the "conservative" objections to obamacare are sometimes mixed.
One objection is a utilitarian one -- obamacare doesn't actually help those it's meant to help as much as other reforms would.
Another objection is liberty-based (maybe you could call it a deontological view?) -- the government should not do X because X violates moral mandate "1". In this case, "1" is liberty or something along those lines.
It might be that the first objection is true but it seems to me that arguing it is very difficult for at least a couple of reasons. First, predicting the consequences seems hard (maybe it's not, but I can't do it). Plus, defending it along these lines only pushes back, I think, the more fundamental issue. And the fundamental issue can be revealed, I think, by looking at what some of the "on the fence" legislators did when they announced they'd support obamacare -- they brought some random sick kid to capitol hill and then gave a press conference about how they had to "follow their heart" or "conscience" and do the "right thing".
And in this case the right thing according to these legislators, it seems to me, is the idea that it is morally acceptable to take other peoples money, or force people to buy into a system, in order to help out the most vulnerable and needy.
That's why I think to truly argue against obamacare you need to be able to say the opposite of this. That is, you need to be able to say, "Yeah, I know $10,000 dollars could save some child's life, but I don't think a billionaire is morally (or politically) obligated to give that kid the money if he'd rather spend it on hookers and yachts (or a factory or other investment)".
Once you've stated this your in a position to more concretely debate with your opponents. Because now the debate will be about the proper role of government. If the government's proper role is to equalize opportunity (or equalize outcome) then obamacare is justified. If the government's proper rule is to protect property then obamacare is not justified.
From this point, then, I think it's a question of methodology: How do you arrive at the proper role of government? Is the proper role of government simply what the government thinks it's proper role is? Is the proper role of government what the majority thinks it should be? Is the proper role of government what the strongest think it should be?
Behind all of these views must be some reasoning as to why "this or that" is the proper role of government.
We are debating the individual mandate, not socialized medicine. That's what people don't understand here. Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it's about breaking the system and forcing premiums higher and forcing insurers to cover fewer and fewer people until single-payer is the only possible option.
So your question about "is it moral to take this guys money to help someone else" is completely irrelevant. The people with money are the people who are ALREADY INSURED. The individual mandate is about forcing people who don't have insurance to pay for it.
|
On March 24 2012 07:58 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
It seems to me that the "conservative" objections to obamacare are sometimes mixed.
One objection is a utilitarian one -- obamacare doesn't actually help those it's meant to help as much as other reforms would.
Another objection is liberty-based (maybe you could call it a deontological view?) -- the government should not do X because X violates moral mandate "1". In this case, "1" is liberty or something along those lines.
It might be that the first objection is true but it seems to me that arguing it is very difficult for at least a couple of reasons. First, predicting the consequences seems hard (maybe it's not, but I can't do it). Plus, defending it along these lines only pushes back, I think, the more fundamental issue. And the fundamental issue can be revealed, I think, by looking at what some of the "on the fence" legislators did when they announced they'd support obamacare -- they brought some random sick kid to capitol hill and then gave a press conference about how they had to "follow their heart" or "conscience" and do the "right thing".
And in this case the right thing according to these legislators, it seems to me, is the idea that it is morally acceptable to take other peoples money, or force people to buy into a system, in order to help out the most vulnerable and needy.
That's why I think to truly argue against obamacare you need to be able to say the opposite of this. That is, you need to be able to say, "Yeah, I know $10,000 dollars could save some child's life, but I don't think a billionaire is morally (or politically) obligated to give that kid the money if he'd rather spend it on hookers and yachts (or a factory or other investment)".
Once you've stated this your in a position to more concretely debate with your opponents. Because now the debate will be about the proper role of government. If the government's proper role is to equalize opportunity (or equalize outcome) then obamacare is justified. If the government's proper rule is to protect property then obamacare is not justified.
From this point, then, I think it's a question of methodology: How do you arrive at the proper role of government? Is the proper role of government simply what the government thinks it's proper role is? Is the proper role of government what the majority thinks it should be? Is the proper role of government what the strongest think it should be?
Behind all of these views must be some reasoning as to why "this or that" is the proper role of government.
We are debating the individual mandate, not socialized medicine. That's what people don't understand here. Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it's about breaking the system and forcing premiums higher and forcing insurers to cover fewer and fewer people until single-payer is the only possible option. So your question about "is it moral to take this guys money to help someone else" is completely irrelevant. The people with money are the people who are ALREADY INSURED. The individual mandate is about forcing people who don't have insurance to pay for it.
Even if we are debating the individual mandate, whether or not that mandate is "good" or "bad" will depend on what framework your using to justify good or bad (e.g., utilitarian or deontological). Nothing you stated challenges my comments. In many ways, your comments go hand-in-hand with my post.
|
On March 24 2012 08:05 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:58 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 07:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
It seems to me that the "conservative" objections to obamacare are sometimes mixed.
One objection is a utilitarian one -- obamacare doesn't actually help those it's meant to help as much as other reforms would.
Another objection is liberty-based (maybe you could call it a deontological view?) -- the government should not do X because X violates moral mandate "1". In this case, "1" is liberty or something along those lines.
It might be that the first objection is true but it seems to me that arguing it is very difficult for at least a couple of reasons. First, predicting the consequences seems hard (maybe it's not, but I can't do it). Plus, defending it along these lines only pushes back, I think, the more fundamental issue. And the fundamental issue can be revealed, I think, by looking at what some of the "on the fence" legislators did when they announced they'd support obamacare -- they brought some random sick kid to capitol hill and then gave a press conference about how they had to "follow their heart" or "conscience" and do the "right thing".
And in this case the right thing according to these legislators, it seems to me, is the idea that it is morally acceptable to take other peoples money, or force people to buy into a system, in order to help out the most vulnerable and needy.
That's why I think to truly argue against obamacare you need to be able to say the opposite of this. That is, you need to be able to say, "Yeah, I know $10,000 dollars could save some child's life, but I don't think a billionaire is morally (or politically) obligated to give that kid the money if he'd rather spend it on hookers and yachts (or a factory or other investment)".
Once you've stated this your in a position to more concretely debate with your opponents. Because now the debate will be about the proper role of government. If the government's proper role is to equalize opportunity (or equalize outcome) then obamacare is justified. If the government's proper rule is to protect property then obamacare is not justified.
From this point, then, I think it's a question of methodology: How do you arrive at the proper role of government? Is the proper role of government simply what the government thinks it's proper role is? Is the proper role of government what the majority thinks it should be? Is the proper role of government what the strongest think it should be?
Behind all of these views must be some reasoning as to why "this or that" is the proper role of government.
We are debating the individual mandate, not socialized medicine. That's what people don't understand here. Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it's about breaking the system and forcing premiums higher and forcing insurers to cover fewer and fewer people until single-payer is the only possible option. So your question about "is it moral to take this guys money to help someone else" is completely irrelevant. The people with money are the people who are ALREADY INSURED. The individual mandate is about forcing people who don't have insurance to pay for it. Even if we are debating the individual mandate, whether or not that mandate is "good" or "bad" will depend on what framework your using to justify good or bad (e.g., utilitarian or deontological). Nothing you stated challenges my comments. In many ways, your comments go hand-in-hand with my post.
These frameworks aren't mutually exclusive. It appears you have no point at all.
|
On March 24 2012 08:11 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 08:05 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On March 24 2012 07:58 liberal wrote:On March 24 2012 07:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
It seems to me that the "conservative" objections to obamacare are sometimes mixed.
One objection is a utilitarian one -- obamacare doesn't actually help those it's meant to help as much as other reforms would.
Another objection is liberty-based (maybe you could call it a deontological view?) -- the government should not do X because X violates moral mandate "1". In this case, "1" is liberty or something along those lines.
It might be that the first objection is true but it seems to me that arguing it is very difficult for at least a couple of reasons. First, predicting the consequences seems hard (maybe it's not, but I can't do it). Plus, defending it along these lines only pushes back, I think, the more fundamental issue. And the fundamental issue can be revealed, I think, by looking at what some of the "on the fence" legislators did when they announced they'd support obamacare -- they brought some random sick kid to capitol hill and then gave a press conference about how they had to "follow their heart" or "conscience" and do the "right thing".
And in this case the right thing according to these legislators, it seems to me, is the idea that it is morally acceptable to take other peoples money, or force people to buy into a system, in order to help out the most vulnerable and needy.
That's why I think to truly argue against obamacare you need to be able to say the opposite of this. That is, you need to be able to say, "Yeah, I know $10,000 dollars could save some child's life, but I don't think a billionaire is morally (or politically) obligated to give that kid the money if he'd rather spend it on hookers and yachts (or a factory or other investment)".
Once you've stated this your in a position to more concretely debate with your opponents. Because now the debate will be about the proper role of government. If the government's proper role is to equalize opportunity (or equalize outcome) then obamacare is justified. If the government's proper rule is to protect property then obamacare is not justified.
From this point, then, I think it's a question of methodology: How do you arrive at the proper role of government? Is the proper role of government simply what the government thinks it's proper role is? Is the proper role of government what the majority thinks it should be? Is the proper role of government what the strongest think it should be?
Behind all of these views must be some reasoning as to why "this or that" is the proper role of government.
We are debating the individual mandate, not socialized medicine. That's what people don't understand here. Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it's about breaking the system and forcing premiums higher and forcing insurers to cover fewer and fewer people until single-payer is the only possible option. So your question about "is it moral to take this guys money to help someone else" is completely irrelevant. The people with money are the people who are ALREADY INSURED. The individual mandate is about forcing people who don't have insurance to pay for it. Even if we are debating the individual mandate, whether or not that mandate is "good" or "bad" will depend on what framework your using to justify good or bad (e.g., utilitarian or deontological). Nothing you stated challenges my comments. In many ways, your comments go hand-in-hand with my post. These frameworks aren't mutually exclusive. It appears you have no point at all.
They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But they don't necessarily coincide either. So I do have a point.
|
|
|
On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Worth noting that in many (most?) 1st world countries, the constitution is not a list of untouchable rights. In Canada and the UK, for example, the only unassailable right is the right to vote (and the requirement for governments to call elections). Everything else can be "violated" as long as the laws meet very, very strict guidelines.
Also, in Canada, health care is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, we got around that through loophole abuse, essentially. The Federal government gives funding to each province, as long as they're meeting certain requirements with the health care program. That way, we have a fairly universal system across the country, and at the same time, a rich enough province can actually decide to go their own way, and forego Federal funding. So you are okay with your rights being violated? And this is somehow an argument against the constitution? UK doesnt even have free speech.
Regarding freedom of speech:
If you look at the freedom of press, northern European countries come out on top. USA is way down at 43th place. Which is behind UK at a 28th place. Now freedom of press isn't the same as freedom of speech, but I would say it tells us a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
|
On March 23 2012 13:59 EtherealDeath wrote:And a couple of opinion polls... Poll: Do you approve of Obamacare?Yes (666) 59% No (441) 39% No Opinion (29) 3% 1136 total votes Your vote: Do you approve of Obamacare? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): No Opinion
Poll: Do you think it is constitutional?No (461) 49% Yes (346) 37% No Opinion (126) 14% 933 total votes Your vote: Do you think it is constitutional? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): No Opinion
This is such a strange poll. I am very confused lol. I actually don't care whether or not we like Obama care or not. Its the fucking discrepancy between liking it and its constitutionality.
D;
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
|
On March 24 2012 08:58 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 13:59 EtherealDeath wrote:And a couple of opinion polls... Poll: Do you approve of Obamacare?Yes (666) 59% No (441) 39% No Opinion (29) 3% 1136 total votes Your vote: Do you approve of Obamacare? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): No Opinion
Poll: Do you think it is constitutional?No (461) 49% Yes (346) 37% No Opinion (126) 14% 933 total votes Your vote: Do you think it is constitutional? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): No Opinion
This is such a strange poll. I am very confused lol. I actually don't care whether or not we like Obama care or not. Its the fucking discrepancy between liking it and its constitutionality. D; Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Poll is open to Europeans and Canadians. I guarantee most people in the US, even on this internet forum, would love to see this disaster of a law shot down.
Let me be absolutely clear. If it is not, then government can literally do anything it wants. If this doesn't get shut down by the courts then the constitution will have finally failed entirely.
|
On March 24 2012 09:04 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 08:58 Half wrote:On March 23 2012 13:59 EtherealDeath wrote:And a couple of opinion polls... Poll: Do you approve of Obamacare?Yes (666) 59% No (441) 39% No Opinion (29) 3% 1136 total votes Your vote: Do you approve of Obamacare? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): No Opinion
Poll: Do you think it is constitutional?No (461) 49% Yes (346) 37% No Opinion (126) 14% 933 total votes Your vote: Do you think it is constitutional? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): No Opinion
This is such a strange poll. I am very confused lol. I actually don't care whether or not we like Obama care or not. Its the fucking discrepancy between liking it and its constitutionality. D; Talk about cognitive dissonance. Poll is open to Europeans and Canadians. I guarantee most people in the US, even on this internet forum, would love to see this disaster of a law shot down. Let me be absolutely clear. If it is not, then government can literally do anything it wants. If this doesn't get shut down by the courts then the constitution will have finally failed entirely.
I suspect a large percentage of the people who are voting "Yes," that they like it are simply expressing a general like for socialized medicine. The majority of people know nothing about the actual law, it's methods, it's effects, it's costs, it's implementation, etc. Non-Americans will simultaneously have both a greater support for socialized medicine and a greater ignorance regarding this actual legislation.
|
On March 23 2012 14:34 meatbox wrote:America needs to withdraw troops and limit funding for the military to $500 per year, then they'll have money, also tax anyone making over $200,000 at 50%, over $500,000 at 60% and over 1 million at 60% with no tax shielding. Anyone earning less than $50,000 shouldn't be taxed. Should lead to free health care and subsidised tertiary education plus a healthy economy. 
wow, please never share this ridiculously retarded opinion again. i think i just had a brain aneurysm knowing people are this fucking stupid.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Nice OP. Very informative. I will be amazed if Obamacare survives the supreme court. Legally speaking, the argument against it appears much stronger. As he said, the federal government is one of limited powers; if congress can legislate inactivity then what can it not? Supreme court is going to have go crazy answering that one if it votes to overturn the 11th circuit.
|
I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.
Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else.
The high cost of medical procedures in the US
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
