[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It only seems humane that in the United States people can go to a hospital if they are injured and not have to worry about losing their home, or not being able to pay rent because of it.[/quote]
You and I probably don’t agree on much politically speaking, but it seems you are a pretty intelligent person who likes to think, and I like that. This statement is problematic for a couple reasons: First, it constitutes a marginal appeal to emotion in argumentation, which is obviously a logical fallacy. More importantly however–and what I believe you may have been intending to get at, is the cost issue of healtcare bankrupting people for operations. THIS is important because as Thunderbolt, Skeptix, Powerpuff’s relative (hospital admin), and myself have all already noted the ACA does NOTHING TO FIX. It doesn’t even address the foundational issue you speak of!! In fact, almost all the fundamental issues that are causing healthcare to skyrocket will be made WORSE by the bill over time. It was made on pure political ideology, to buy votes and push an agenda, not because it was the most reasonable way to approach the problem. Historical evidence from Mass and the UK indicate that costs will go up, not down (referencing UK, look at inflation adjusted figures for various costs from decades ago to today).
The further difference is that the tax and govt structures that exist in Europe which allow these national healthcare systems to avoid bankruptcy for so long do not exist in the US. Call it a difference of culture. So not only is it bad economic policy, the gov’t infrastructure that allows it to sort of function overseas is not present here. That makes the problem worse, not better. We just put a tiger in a room of bystanders without giving it anything to eat first.
[quote]If there is shady shit in the bill, which I’m sure there is I’d like to hear the specifics from both sides. Getting the truth about this sort of stuff is usually an independent venture that takes a bit of time (for me at least).
But, what I found here were people moaning and crying (like little girls, look at the first several pages) about how it’s a tax and wrong in all the exact same ways Romneycare was wrong. That is honestly what I read the first few pages before my initial post. [/quote]
Well, I disagree with you on several levels. First and foremost, this was not, is not, and never was, a “tax” no matter what Justice Roberts’ tortured logic dictates in his opinion paper. It is and has always been a penalty, and that is a HUGE issue for me.
A second and gigantic issue is the re-definition of “tax” according to the recent ruling which essentially endangers and destroys a large chunk, a huge piece, of the separation between freedom and Federal power. This is related to the Constitutional issues–and anybody choosing to conveniently ignore or dismiss (my eye here is on several noted left leaning posters) shows their ignorance of the monumental issues at hand, regardless of the visage which these issues took in the court (that appearance would be insurance and healthcare, as opposed to say, firearms or religious issues or whatever).
Thirdly, this is wrong economically in all the same ways Romneycare was wrong (and look at the increased costs there–that is the exact opposite of what needs to happen), however it is wrong in many more principled ways that Romneycare–howevermuch it was terrible policy and economically burdensome–is controversy free by virtue of there being a significant and often not understood difference between what a State may do legislatively and what the Federal legislature may do Constitutionally.
[quote]I’m certainly concerned with state vs. federal law and how that impacts our rights, and that is definitely a point that would change my position on this particular topic due to precedent, even if the end result is something I agree with, precedent trumps… After some of your posts (not you Zeb, wont give you the satisfaction :P) I realize there is a bit more to this than meets the eye, and if I try to intelligently defend the bill (which I probably wouldn’t), I need to get very familiar with it’s consequences. Hopefully that clears things up!
Cheers folks, great discussion.
[/quote]
If you haven’t read it already, I would start by reading the Judge Napolitano piece pushharder posted up a few pages back and then the dissenting opinions. They give a very clear reasoning to the difficulties at hand. If you are able to do it without resorting to partisan knee-jerk reaction–which I believe you are–you will likely come up with a very long list of issues that concern you, much as they do us who are opposed to the bill.
Fundamentally, what has most of us so up in arms is the fact that this is not an Insurance issue, as countingbeans has so clearly hammered in his posts. Further, think of this: the door is open for this new “tax” paradigm to be pushed by the Right on things that the left-leaning people will find extremely dis-tasteful—but they won’t be able to cross it since this was their “baby”. This is a weapon NEITHER side should have access to.
[/quote]
I’ll be the first to admit that was an appeal to emotion, it was an outright Ad misericordiam fallacy. But what is wrong with that? I’m not trying to appeal to logic, I’m appealing to patriotism and Christian ethics, which are basically parallel to my own. There is this one saying that I find sort of haunting, and has always struck me from the days I used to be Catholic; “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.”
You are supposed to treat our impoverished with charity as Christians, for me it is about treating people as ends in themselves. I know people who work several jobs and barely make it, I know what I get paid for what I do, and I know I would struggle doing what they do period. Treating a person as an end in themselves would mean that business owners should have an endeavor to treat people as ends in themselves in the form of a living wage so long as they are willing to put in that sort of effort. If your boss doesn’t care about you having a living wage, and is more concerned about their extra home, or their extra fancy french horses who trot around all pretty, that bugs the shit out of me. I know if I were an employer and I had people doing good work for me, I’d want them to share in OUR success.
This gets into pay structure, and I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I think at some point we have to recognize greed for what it is, and put it in check. We need to check our own ethics and stick to them as a way of life, rather than voice them when it is convenient. [/quote]
All of this ^ is fine and good if done from and through the church and charity. It’s when it’s done from and through the edge of the sword that folks like me and many others tend to get a bit discombobulated. Ya know what I mean?
Distinctions are always essential.[/quote]
Distinctions are indeed always essential. There are a lot of conservative Christians here who proudly claim that title. I feel I wouldn’t be a good person, or doing what I feel is my sort of duty if I didn’t call some of you out.
I was a kid when George Bush Sr. talked about, “A thousand points of light.” I was in the Military when George Bush Jr. talked about compassionate conservatives. Lets just say I have zero faith in Christian Conservatives being compassionate or points of light who chip in and do their, “duty.”
I’ve come to understand what, “duty” actually is. I think it was defined best by Immanuel Kant.
He described one man who donates much of his money to charity because it brings him great joy and happiness. Another man donates money and experiences no joy or happiness, but he does it because it’s the right thing to do, out of a sense of duty to his fellow man (and God).
Guess who is doing the right thing, for the right reason? Ideally you can do the right thing for the right reason, and still get a warm fuzzy at the end, but the example is supposed to illustrate the fact that we don’t always feel great about the good things we do. But the good person is going to do the right thing regardless, if he is fortunate he will be able to do the right thing for the right reason and get a warm fuzzy on top.
I’ll tell you right now, I’m completely underwhelmed by the sort of Charity, compassion and, “points of light” output by everyone, but I’m especially disappointed in Christian Conservatives who tout these values, but I haven’t seen that many actually possess these values that I’m familiar with, because I grew up learning many of the same values. It’s like I said, tend to talk a good talk, but when it comes down to it, they don’t even do the right thing part, let alone doing the right thing for the right reason.
Just calling it like I see it.
