Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Voting for Romney and hoping he has long, broad coattails is, unfortunately, the only way the ACA has a prayer of being repealed.

what is ACA?

Probably not the American Correctional Association, which is what I'm familiar with...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
what is ACA?

Affordable Care Act. Obamacare.

 dogma wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
what is ACA?

Affordable Care Act. Obamacare.

IOW, our government's gift to the insurance industry, and pretty much what the republican party wanted until they realized they could use it against Obama in 2010.

But yeah, we'd better get rid of it ASAP, we can't have people actually getting treatment they couldn't otherwise afford. We'd better make sure they die so we can spend that money on expanding the military. After all, the US navy is at its smallest since WWI, and we can't let a mere weak economy stop us from buying more battleships!

 Peregrine wrote:

IOW, our government's gift to the insurance industry, and pretty much what the republican party wanted until they realized they could use it against Obama in 2010.

But yeah, we'd better get rid of it ASAP, we can't have people actually getting treatment they couldn't otherwise afford. We'd better make sure they die so we can spend that money on expanding the military. After all, the US navy is at its smallest since WWI, and we can't let a mere weak economy stop us from buying more battleships!

Are there any other private products you'd be comfortable with the government mandating you must purchase just because you choose to continue to keep living?

If you want everyone to have health insurance, hand everyone health insurance. A half-assed, chickengak measure like the ACA, though? feth that.

After all, the US navy is at its smallest since WWI, and we can't let a mere weak economy stop us from buying more battleships!

Didn't we mothballed all our Battleships? Besides once we pull out of Afghanistan all the "plus up" brigades will deactivate and go back to the 10 divisions (Army) that Clinton implemented. As for the funding to support two wars it was borrowed money.

 Seaward wrote:
If you want everyone to have health insurance, hand everyone health insurance. A half-assed, chickengak measure like the ACA, though? feth that.

I agree that the ACA sucks and we need to just have a national health care system. However, it's the best our spineless representatives were able to get, and far better than nothing. Repealing ACA because it's not good enough is just acting out of childish spite, especially since the law also included some extremely important reforms along with the mandatory insurance.

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't we mothballed all our Battleships? Besides once we pull out of Afghanistan all the "plus up" brigades will deactivate and go back to the 10 divisions (Army) that Clinton implemented. As for the funding to support two wars it was borrowed money.

Of course, that's exactly the point. Romney's claim that the navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 is painfully stupid. However, since he thinks that the 1917 navy is better, it's not entirely unreasonable to think that he'd like to commission some new battleships with the savings from all the social programs he wants to kill. Why let a trivial detail like the fact that battleships are worthless get in the way of anything?

 Peregrine wrote:
I agree that the ACA sucks and we need to just have a national health care system. However, it's the best our spineless representatives were able to get, and far better than nothing. Repealing ACA because it's not good enough is just acting out of childish spite, especially since the law also included some extremely important reforms along with the mandatory insurance.

I don't want to repeal it because it's not good enough, I want to repeal it because it's a gross violation of personal liberty.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I agree that the ACA sucks and we need to just have a national health care system. However, it's the best our spineless representatives were able to get, and far better than nothing. Repealing ACA because it's not good enough is just acting out of childish spite, especially since the law also included some extremely important reforms along with the mandatory insurance.

I don't want to repeal it because it's not good enough, I want to repeal it because it's a gross violation of personal liberty.

And this is why libertarianism is a broken political system, it puts abstract ideas like "personal liberty" above whether or not the results of something are good. It's the reason why pragmatic politicians run the government, and libertarians just post on internet forums.

Pragmatic politicians? What planet are you living on? Politicians in the United States only exist to increase their personal power and wealth. They give not one single damn about you or any one else in this country.

 Peregrine wrote:
And this is why libertarianism is a broken political system, it puts abstract ideas like "personal liberty" above whether or not the results of something are good.

Sort of like the Constitution.

It's the reason why pragmatic politicians run the government, and libertarians just post on internet forums.

Yeah, I don't think you want to go down the "pragmatic politicians seeking 'good' outcomes" route, unless you haven't bothered to think it through. Bush gave us the Patriot Act and justifications for the use of torture in search of a good outcome. McCarthy gave us HUAC infamy in search of a good outcome. Some pragmatic guys over in Europe and Asia have tried that line of reasoning before, too. You've heard of them.

If you, as you say, genuinely don't value personal liberty, that's fine. Hopefully you'll understand my disdain at needing the government to get you where you want to go in life.

 dogma wrote:
To be fair, there is a good argument that PBS would be better off if it didn't take government money because it wouldn't have to deal with being a political football. The same for NPR.

Which is a reasonable argument for improving NPR and PBS. But as answer to the deficit...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Voting for Romney and hoping he has long, broad coattails is, unfortunately, the only way the ACA has a prayer of being repealed.

"If you don't like the ACA and believe in magic then vote for Romney!"
"What if I don't believe in magic and understand it is beyond the powers of a president to repeal legislation already signed into power by congress?"
"Well then you're fethed."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I don't want to repeal it because it's not good enough, I want to repeal it because it's a gross violation of personal liberty.

Yeah, see, that thing where you choose ideological purity over and above things that work in the real world? That's why libertarians are irrelevant.


Meanwhile, there's a significant problem in the US with private insurers denying coverage to people on any grounds they can muster (usually pre-existing conditions), once they see the cost of coverage is more than they'd like to pay, or just because their genetic make up looks like they'll cost too much in the long run. The solution is to stop insurers denying coverage to people who have such pre-existing conditions. Unforunately, that means people can just wait until they're sick before they get coverage, so there's a system in place to make sure healthy people who haven't taken out insurance pay into the system.

You have a problem with this, because you don't like having to pay money when government tells you to. So what's your alternative solution?

 Seaward wrote:
Sort of like the Constitution.

Exactly. The Constitution is a useful document, nothing more. It has value so long as it accomplishes useful things, but absolutely none in any inherent sense. People who worship it as the absolute truth and god's gift to his chosen people are just as bad as libertarians, and just as irrelevant.

Yeah, I don't think you want to go down the "pragmatic politicians seeking 'good' outcomes" route, unless you haven't bothered to think it through. Bush gave us the Patriot Act and justifications for the use of torture in search of a good outcome. McCarthy gave us HUAC infamy in search of a good outcome. Some pragmatic guys over in Europe and Asia have tried that line of reasoning before, too. You've heard of them.

Ok, so what harm does the ACA cause that's comparable to torture? Having to pay a tax if you don't buy insurance, alongside all of your other taxes?

If you, as you say, genuinely don't value personal liberty, that's fine. Hopefully you'll understand my disdain at needing the government to get you where you want to go in life.

I value personal liberty when personal liberty accomplishes a beneficial goal. I don't value personal liberty just for the sake of personal liberty. That's the kind of reasoning I leave for the idiots who oppose seatbelt laws because they deprive them of the "personal liberty" to die (or worse, be horribly injured) in a car crash.

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. The Constitution is a useful document, nothing more. It has value so long as it accomplishes useful things, but absolutely none in any inherent sense. People who worship it as the absolute truth and god's gift to his chosen people are just as bad as libertarians, and just as irrelevant.

At this point, I'd recommend a remedial Civics class. The Constitution has considerably more weight in the governance on this country than as a useful document that can be discarded at a moment's notice when we want to do something that runs contrary to it. I say this in all seriousness: if you're unaware of the Constitution's role in law-making in this country, you need to go into class tomorrow and smack your teachers.

Ok, so what harm does the ACA cause that's comparable to torture? Having to pay a tax if you don't buy insurance, alongside all of your other taxes?

Precedent is the harm that it sets.

I value personal liberty when personal liberty accomplishes a beneficial goal. I don't value personal liberty just for the sake of personal liberty. That's the kind of reasoning I leave for the idiots who oppose seatbelt laws because they deprive them of the "personal liberty" to die (or worse, be horribly injured) in a car crash.

Are you under the impression that we're desperately lacking humans on this planet or something? That we have to work to keep our population up?

So, in not valuing personal liberty for the sake of personal liberty, let me put this hypothetical to you: if I could guarantee you a utopian society in return for the surrendering of your right to free speech, you'd take that deal?

 Seaward wrote:
At this point, I'd recommend a remedial Civics class. The Constitution has considerably more weight in the governance on this country than as a useful document that can be discarded at a moment's notice when we want to do something that runs contrary to it. I say this in all seriousness: if you're unaware of the Constitution's role in law-making in this country, you need to go into class tomorrow and smack your teachers.

Congratulations on missing the point. I'm well aware of how it's been used in the past, that doesn't mean it has some inherent value beyond the fact that it's been a useful tool in governance so far, or that anything that seems to violate the constitution is automatically wrong.

Precedent is the harm that it sets.

Precedence for WHAT? What exactly does ACA allow that isn't already allowed?

Are you under the impression that we're desperately lacking humans on this planet or something? That we have to work to keep our population up?

No, which is why I support proper sex education, availability of birth control, and efforts to improve standards of living (which tends to drop birth rates). I strongly oppose the idea that we should allow insurance company profits to act as a form of population control where people who can afford health care live, while anyone who can't dies in horrible ways.

So, in not valuing personal liberty for the sake of personal liberty, let me put this hypothetical to you: if I could guarantee you a utopian society in return for the surrendering of your right to free speech, you'd take that deal?

No, because that wouldn't be a utopian society.

Is it really that hard to tell the difference between valuing personal liberty that benefits me and making a pointless ideological stand for personal "liberties" like the right to refuse to wear a seatbelt and die?

 Peregrine wrote:
Congratulations on missing the point. I'm well aware of how it's been used in the past, that doesn't mean it has some inherent value beyond the fact that it's been a useful tool in governance so far, or that anything that seems to violate the constitution is automatically wrong.

Anything that violates the Constitution is, in fact, automatically wrong, under our system of law. That's largely why we have the Supreme Court - to determine if something is constitutional or not. Again, I would strongly suggest learning how our government functions and the principles upon which it was established.

Precedence for WHAT? What exactly does ACA allow that isn't already allowed?

Government mandates to purchase products from private companies for no other reason than existing.

No, which is why I support proper sex education, availability of birth control, and efforts to improve standards of living (which tends to drop birth rates). I strongly oppose the idea that we should allow insurance company profits to act as a form of population control where people who can afford health care live, while anyone who can't dies in horrible ways.

And so you think forcing everyone to buy health insurance regardless is a good solution? I'd laugh, but I'm terribly afraid you're serious.

No, because that wouldn't be a utopian society.

Why would it not be a utopian society? I told you it would be utopian; you would not need to speak out against anything in a utopian society, so what good would free speech do you?

Is it really that hard to tell the difference between valuing personal liberty that benefits me and making a pointless ideological stand for personal "liberties" like the right to refuse to wear a seatbelt and die?

Yes, it is, because it's an extremely short-sighted and naive view. Threats to liberties we value in this country - speech, religion, whatever you choose to name - never come as big, monolithic changes. They're small, and quiet. A suspension of habeus corpus under Lincoln here, a decision that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is acceptable under Bush there. They're always one step in a path, never a leap.

There's always a rationale for the common good to get rid of damn near any personal liberty out there. Many have been used, in this country and in others, successfully. If we used your "for the good of society" test to determine whether or not we're free to do as we like, the list of things we would NOT be allowed to do would be massive.

 Seaward wrote:
Anything that violates the Constitution is, in fact, automatically wrong, under our system of law. That's largely why we have the Supreme Court - to determine if something is constitutional or not. Again, I would strongly suggest learning how our government functions and the principles upon which it was established.

Legalism is a terrible ethical system. I don't care if it's legal, what I'm talking about is whether it is right.

And so you think forcing everyone to buy health insurance regardless is a good solution? I'd laugh, but I'm terribly afraid you're serious.

Do you even know what the ACA does?

Why would it not be a utopian society? I told you it would be utopian; you would not need to speak out against anything in a utopian society, so what good would free speech do you?

Because freedom of speech is part of utopia, in my opinion. It's like saying "imagine a utopian society in which you are tortured constantly", you might call it "utopian" but it isn't.

Yes, it is, because it's an extremely short-sighted and naive view. Threats to liberties we value in this country - speech, religion, whatever you choose to name - never come as big, monolithic changes. They're small, and quiet. A suspension of habeus corpus under Lincoln here, a decision that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is acceptable under Bush there. They're always one step in a path, never a leap.

And there you go again with your poor comparisons. There's a huge difference between those things you're talking about and the "liberty" that only people who blindly obsess over liberty to the exclusion of all else care about. You can make a stand on principle if you like, just like the people who protest seatbelt laws because they want the liberty to die pointlessly, but that doesn't mean you have a reasonable position.

The simple fact is that the ACA doesn't present any meaningful threat to liberty, it's just another tax.

There's always a rationale for the common good to get rid of damn near any personal liberty out there. Many have been used, in this country and in others, successfully. If we used your "for the good of society" test to determine whether or not we're free to do as we like, the list of things we would NOT be allowed to do would be massive.

No it wouldn't.

I would like to throw this in the ring, IMHO two major things I hear frequently from American's when they argue about their Political parties is:-

1. The Healthcare Situation.
2. Small vs Large Government.

Point 2 is something I think that most countries debate and fight with to achieve a sense of Balance.

Point 1 to me is the one I really despair at. In Europe we don't have the vast Wealth of the USA, although we are still wealthy compared to other area's of the world (inspite of the current Euro Crisis).

I find it difficult to comprehend, how Britain with such a small Population, tiny Land mass and GDP in comparison with the USA can afford a National Health Service for all, with a general across the board satisfactory or good in all areas. I do understand that the US believes it has the "Best healthcare in the World" but my argument is about "Provision" not "Quality". The NHS might have it's share of problems but it's provision of service and level of service it provides is quite simply superb.

Alot of richer folk also pay extra into the system under BUPA to get better levels of service (private rooms, en suite etc), we also have private medical practices (the likes of Harley Street etc in London), we also have World Beating Institutions like Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) which is a World Centre for Excellence in Child Care (some one will now spout off about John Hopkins in the US) but the fact is GOSH is World Class and World Leading. We treat children there from round the globe, through diplomatic channels and Charities. It takes money from the Government, Charities and estates given to it.

If we hadn't created the NHS we would have ended up with a Lower Class, ill- health Ghetto riddled with things like rickets, polio, whooping cough. To me it is a shining achievement in the post war era in the UK.

Canada has a sophisticated Healthcare system too, Why is the USA so reticent to provide for it's people. What happened to the Noble USA, that welcomed all to the land of the Brave and free?

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, But if you aren't wealthy I shall cast you aside to die an ignoble, lonely, cold and unworthy death"

Equally I wonder just how much the USA needs to spend on Defence systems? How can such an amazing country, which I admire in many respects, be so backward in so many other ways?

 Peregrine wrote:
Legalism is a terrible ethical system. I don't care if it's legal, what I'm talking about is whether it is right.

And I don't think it's right for the government to force me to buy something because it feels I need it.

Do you even know what the ACA does?

Yes. Do you?

Because freedom of speech is part of utopia, in my opinion.

Why? Why is freedom of speech important, since we're on the topic of personal liberty? You said earlier that you'd have no problem with giving up personal liberties as long as the outcome was good; I'm curious why the freedom of speech isn't included in that?

And there you go again with your poor comparisons. There's a huge difference between those things you're talking about and the "liberty" that only people who blindly obsess over liberty to the exclusion of all else care about.

No, there isn't.

You can make a stand on principle if you like, just like the people who protest seatbelt laws because they want the liberty to die pointlessly, but that doesn't mean you have a reasonable position.

Yes, they do. Do you believe Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide? If someone wishes to die, should they be free to do so?

The simple fact is that the ACA doesn't present any meaningful threat to liberty, it's just another tax.

I'll again ask if you know what the ACA does.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Canada has a sophisticated Healthcare system too, Why is the USA so reticent to provide for it's people. What happened to the Noble USA, that welcomed all to the land of the Brave and free?

You don't even have to look outside the US to make that an awkward question. Just ask why the republican party, the most loudly pro-military "support our troops" side, feels that government-provided healthcare is good enough for our troops, but the worst thing ever for the rest of the country? Why do they force our brave defenders to face the death panels?

If you ever get an adequate answer to that, I'd love to know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Yes. Do you?

Apparently you don't, because you missed the reforms it enacted to limit the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage (which effectively means denying treatment) to people they would otherwise dismiss as "too expensive". You know, reforms that actually keep people from dying.

Why? Why is freedom of speech important, since we're on the topic of personal liberty? You said earlier that you'd have no problem with giving up personal liberties as long as the outcome was good; I'm curious why the freedom of speech isn't included in that?

Because I want the ability to say whatever I want without fear of persecution.

Why is it really that hard to see how this is different from a liberty-in-name-only like the "right" to not wear a seatbelt and die because of my own stupidity?

Yes, they do. Do you believe Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide? If someone wishes to die, should they be free to do so?

Err, lol?

Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide in limited cases. It only applies to people suffering from a terminal disease who are about to die slowly and painfully anyway.

The "right" to do suicidally stupid things is entirely different. You aren't giving yourself a merciful end and avoiding a horrifyingly painful death, you're throwing away your life because you're too stubborn to wear a seatbelt (something which doesn't harm you in any way). Only an idiot would think that's a "right" in any meaningful sense.

And it's even a stupid comparison if you believe in a right to suicide. You might have a right to end your own life, but you don't have a right to do so in a way that gives society a huge bill for your hospital trip as the doctors desperately try to save you.

 Peregrine wrote:
Apparently you don't, because you missed the reforms it enacted to limit the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage (which effectively means denying treatment) to people they would otherwise dismiss as "too expensive". You know, reforms that actually keep people from dying.

No, I'm familiar with them. I'm also familiar with insurance companies. You're crowing about a system that forces people to purchase insurance coverage; it doesn't guarantee them good healthcare, or that they'll get to make the decision that's best for their health. The insurance companies are still the ones making that call, we're all now just forced to participate in the system.

Because I want the ability to say whatever I want without fear of persecution.

That's it? That's your reasoning for the need for free speech? Because you want it? You can't come up with anything better than that? How is wanting to be free to say whatever you want different from wanting to be able to do whatever you want?

Why is it really that hard to see how this is different from a liberty-in-name-only like the "right" to not wear a seatbelt and die because of my own stupidity?

Err, lol?

Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide in limited cases. It only applies to people suffering from a terminal disease who are about to die slowly and painfully anyway.

The "right" to do suicidally stupid things is entirely different. You aren't giving yourself a merciful end and avoiding a horrifyingly painful death, you're throwing away your life because you're too stubborn to wear a seatbelt (something which doesn't harm you in any way). Only an idiot would think that's a "right" in any meaningful sense.

It's not different. It's my life, I have the right to do with it as I wish so long as I'm not harming others. This, based on what you've said so far, is not your view; the government, in your opinion, has final say on what's good for people, and has every right to make the best decisions for them.

That's horrifying. I truly mean that. That you're so fething sheeplike as to need a herder in the form of government to take care of you and see you through life is one of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard for getting rid of government altogether so we can do a bit of sorting out in terms of evolutionary fitness, and restart the whole thing over again.

How dare someone question the need for battleships!!!!!!!!

One of them saved the world against aliens!!



GG

p.s. could we get back to talking about the debate?

 generalgrog wrote:
p.s. could we get back to talking about the debate?

What's there to talk about? Romney won.

 Seaward wrote:
No, I'm familiar with them. I'm also familiar with insurance companies. You're crowing about a system that forces people to purchase insurance coverage; it doesn't guarantee them good healthcare, or that they'll get to make the decision that's best for their health. The insurance companies are still the ones making that call, we're all now just forced to participate in the system.

And again, you miss the point entirely: without the ACA insurance companies have a lot more opportunities to deny health care entirely. Without it people who want to buy insurance are denied coverage because the insurance company thinks they're too much of a risk. And given the cost of a lot of treatments, what that really means is you die. If you can't see how this is a massive improvement then you're not paying attention.

That's it? That's your reasoning for the need for free speech? Because you want it? You can't come up with anything better than that? How is wanting to be free to say whatever you want different from wanting to be able to do whatever you want?

Because I gain something from saying whatever I want. I don't gain something from having a "right" to get killed pointlessly. It isn't a meaningful right if the only reason a person would ever exercise the "right" is to stubbornly prove that they can.

It's not different. It's my life, I have the right to do with it as I wish so long as I'm not harming others. This, based on what you've said so far, is not your view; the government, in your opinion, has final say on what's good for people, and has every right to make the best decisions for them.

Let's review:

Wear a seatbelt:
Good: less chance of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.
Bad: none.

Don't wear a seatbelt:
Good: get to stubbornly "do what I want" against all common sense.
Bad: increased risk of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.

The only reason to pick "don't wear a seatbelt" is if you're too ing stupid to be capable of handling your own life. Therefore the government intervenes to force you to stop doing pointlessly stupid things and maybe keep you alive despite your shortsighted ideas about "freedom".


PS: you ARE harming others because guess who gets stuck with your medical bill when you get rushed to the hospital and can't afford the cost of keeping you alive. Hint: that bill doesn't magically disappear just because you can't afford it.

PPS: you ARE harming others because I suspect your family and friends aren't going to be very happy to find out that you earned yourself a Darwin award just to prove that you could.

That's horrifying. I truly mean that. That you're so fething sheeplike as to need a herder in the form of government to take care of you and see you through life is one of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard for getting rid of government altogether so we can do a bit of sorting out in terms of evolutionary fitness, and restart the whole thing over again.

Why libertarianism is a broken political philosophy, exhibit #934905903495035345.

 Seaward wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
p.s. could we get back to talking about the debate?

What's there to talk about? Romney won.

Yeah I watched some of the "liberal" pundits yesterday afternoon..and all of the whining and crying was pathetic.

GG

 Peregrine wrote:
And again, you miss the point entirely: without the ACA insurance companies have a lot more opportunities to deny health care entirely. Without it people who want to buy insurance are denied coverage because the insurance company thinks they're too much of a risk. And given the cost of a lot of treatments, what that really means is you die. If you can't see how this is a massive improvement then you're not paying attention.

What about the people who don't want to buy insurance?

Because I gain something from saying whatever I want. I don't gain something from having a "right" to get killed pointlessly. It isn't a meaningful right if the only reason a person would ever exercise the "right" is to stubbornly prove that they can.

What amuses me is that you boil everything down to wearing a seatbelt. Is that really the only thing you believe you're not free to do in this or any other country?

Let's review:

Wear a seatbelt:
Good: less chance of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.
Bad: none.

Don't wear a seatbelt:
Good: get to stubbornly "do what I want" against all common sense.
Bad: increased risk of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.

The only reason to pick "don't wear a seatbelt" is if you're too ing stupid to be capable of handling your own life. Therefore the government intervenes to force you to stop doing pointlessly stupid things and maybe keep you alive despite your shortsighted ideas about "freedom".

Using that logic, why aren't you a strong advocate of the government mandating what you eat? Obesity is, bar none, the number one driver of health care costs in this country.

Government diet:
Good: less chance of developing a whole host of obesity-related conditions and illnesses, all of which are expensive and resource-intensive
Bad: none.

Eat what you want:
Good: get to stubbornly "eat what you want" against all common sense
Bad: Increased risk of dying young, statistically increased chance of developing obesity-linked illnesses that drive up healthcare costs and strain hospital resources

PS: you ARE harming others because guess who gets stuck with your medical bill when you get rushed to the hospital and can't afford the cost of keeping you alive. Hint: that bill doesn't magically disappear just because you can't afford it.

Yeah, but I actually can afford it. If I can't? Don't treat me. Either way, as I said above, the costs to Americans from obesity-related illnesses far, far, FAR outweigh the costs to Americans from uninsured motorists involved in accidents. So, Captain Nanny State, get to bleating about how the government ought to tell us what to eat. It's for our own good and the good of society, after all. Keeps us from harming others by diverting healthcare resources from those in need to our bloated selves. Drives costs down and frees up doctors so that we all live longer, healthier lives.

 Seaward wrote:
What about the people who don't want to buy insurance?

Too bad. Pay your stupidity tax until we get national health care and then the name of the tax changes.

What amuses me is that you boil everything down to wearing a seatbelt. Is that really the only thing you believe you're not free to do in this or any other country?

The point is that libertarianism is so obsessed with "freedom" that it makes pointless stands on "issues" like seatbelt laws. It's a political philosophy that's entirely focused on ideological purity, to the point that it loses sight of the end goal of creating the best results.

Using that logic, why aren't you a strong advocate of the government mandating what you eat? Obesity is, bar none, the number one driver of health care costs in this country.

Except you missed the part where:

1) There is no universally correct diet.

and

2) People get a lot of enjoyment out of their food choices, while people DON'T gain anything from not wearing a seatbelt.

So no, that's not a good comparison.

Yeah, but I actually can afford it. If I can't? Don't treat me.

Except that the law is that you have to be provided with emergency treatment. Whether or not you can afford it doesn't even come up until it's far too late to make that decision. If you pointlessly get yourself hurt in a car crash and can't afford the medical bills you're passing on that cost to society as a whole.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Yeah I watched some of the "liberal" pundits yesterday afternoon..and all of the whining and crying was pathetic.

Actually Romney lost. When you're losing the election overall you need a decisive win, not a "win" that only politics fans care about. Obama didn't say anything fatally stupid, Romney lied enough to give plenty of quotes for new campaign ads against him, and the polls seem to suggest that Romney didn't pick up any real benefit from the debate.

 Peregrine wrote:
Too bad. Pay your stupidity tax until we get national health care and then the name of the tax changes.

No thanks, I can take care of myself.

The point is that libertarianism is so obsessed with "freedom" that it makes pointless stands on "issues" like seatbelt laws. It's a political philosophy that's entirely focused on ideological purity, to the point that it loses sight of the end goal of creating the best results.

No, libertarianism's obsessed with the absolutely correct notion that I can run my own life better than a parcel of idiots who need the government to do everything for them.

Except you missed the part where:

1) There is no universally correct diet.

We know how to create a diet so that an individual doesn't get fat.

and

2) People get a lot of enjoyment out of their food choices, while people DON'T gain anything from not wearing a seatbelt.

Speak for yourself. I can carry a lot more comfortably when not wearing a seatbelt.

Except that the law is that you have to be provided with emergency treatment. Whether or not you can afford it doesn't even come up until it's far too late to make that decision. If you pointlessly get yourself hurt in a car crash and can't afford the medical bills you're passing on that cost to society as a whole.

Not so much, no. I have an acquaintance who's still paying down a medical debt from an unexpected emergency room trip due to kidney stones. She didn't have insurance at the time. They don't just absolve the cost on a whim and shift it onto "society in general" unless you're truly worthless.

 Seaward wrote:
No, libertarianism's obsessed with the absolutely correct notion that I can run my own life better than a parcel of idiots who need the government to do everything for them.

Except:

1) As I pointed out, libertarianism is obsessed with ideological purity over stupid "freedoms" that not even libertarians care about outside of ranting about the government taking away their freedom.

2) That's a position that's only available to a privileged few. I admit that libertarianism is great if you're already well off, but if you aren't it that "independence" isn't nearly as useful as things like being able to afford food.

We know how to create a diet so that an individual doesn't get fat.

No we don't.

(And no, 100 calories a day does not count.)

Not so much, no. I have an acquaintance who's still paying down a medical debt from an unexpected emergency room trip due to kidney stones. She didn't have insurance at the time. They don't just absolve the cost on a whim and shift it onto "society in general" unless you're truly worthless.

Oh yeah, there's the alternative where they just give you obscene bills that you'll never be able to pay off and force you into bankruptcy, at which point society pays the cost.

Or there's always the version where you are fatally injured and die despite all effort to save you, in which case the best they can do is hope to collect from your estate, and if you didn't have enough wealth to pay for it, well, society pays the cost.