CDZ Great debate point on restrictions: Voting Rights vs. Health Care Mandates

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine brought up a GREAT point, I think,
asking why do Conservatives push for restrictions in one area
but oppose restrictions in another.

I was trying to explain how exemptions/tax penalties on the choice of paying for health care
is unconstitutional overreaching by federal govt, because people should have free choice
of how to pay, without the Federal Govt imposing mandates and regulations on those choices.

I said that if the people committing abuses by not paying are the reason for the restrictions,
then it is wrongful to deprive ALL OTHER citizens of freedom when we didn't commit any crime,
fraud or abuse.

He said then why doesn't that apply to voter's rights.

If the issue is FRAUD, then why restrict ALL OTHER citizens and require ID to vote,
if those are not proven to be the fraudulent abusers committing wrongs.

I thought that was INTERESTING!

It isn't a PERFECT analogy or comparison, but it is close enough to bring up interesting points!

So if people ask "why complain about health insurance if people have to buy car insurance"
that is like asking "why complain about ID to vote if you have to use ID to go to the bank
or ID to buy beer or buy guns"

So at least it set up some ANALOGOUS arguments on the left and right.

Even if it isn't perfectly the same context or laws or logic,
the BIAS is similar coming from one side or the other.

One side "doesn't think any rights are lost by requiring voter ID" and the only opposition is from fraud. And guess what, that is like the other side that "doesn't think any rights are lost by requiring health insurance because people need that anyway."

*Psychologically comparing the perception* behind the reasoning
it is interesting even if logistically the arguments are not the same at all.

The mindsets going into the arguments on both sides are close parallels
to help me understand WHY the two sides don't get the objections of the other.

What do you think?

 

[FA_Q2]

I would state that the key difference in the two analogies is that voter ID is simply requiring you to prove who you are before exercising that right whereas the other is requiring you to purchase a commercial product from a company. They are not analogous at all. In that same context, I would say that single payer (even though I think it is completely wrong) is actually constitutional - the government is providing that service through taxation but the key problem with the ACA's move is that it makes us beholden to a commercial entity. That, IMHO, is corporatist and absolutely unacceptable.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Even your car insurance to health insurance is not analogous. The only auto insurance you are required to buy is liability which protects the other party. You are not required to buy collision or comp which protects yourself. Health insurance is to protect the purchaser.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you FA_Q2 and Silent Warrior
Again, my point is not to nitpick over why there are differences in the LETTER of the law and situation.

My point is that the SPIRIT of the BELIEF is on close to the same level.

The BELIEF that voting is a RIGHT and if people had freedom before, to alternative ways of voting that didn't require ID,
but the law is changed because of "other people's" fraud or fear of fraud, then the voters who are now required to do things they didn't have to before feel their "freedom or rights are being restricted or diminished" because of OTHER PEOPLE.

If they are who they are, that is not a crime or fraud to vote.

Yet now they are REQUIRED to prove it IN ADVANCE using something that isn't automatic or free on the spot.

With health care, NOW people are REQUIRED to show PROOF of Insurance as the
ONLY WAY accepted as proof they "are willing to pay or have ability to pay" which isn't the only way someone can pay.

If someone DOES intend to pay their health care costs, that is NOT a crime or fraud to pay for this other ways
besides insurance.
Why are we required to PROVE it in advance with INSURANCE as the only way?

Sure it is not the same at all.

Buying Insurance under a pseudo mix of govt regulations on private business is WAY more complicated,
unconstitutional and EXPENSIVE with a Tax fine on top (that goes into more of this nonsense).

Than paying for an ID that you use anyway for banking or other services that require it.

But when it comes to
voting rights being DENIED if one does not show ID in the prescribed manner (and not allowed to use alternative
means such as signing an affidavit)

the EMOTIONAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL WEIGHT
is what I am comparing as a close EQUIVALENT to
the OFFENSE caused by imposing the health care mandates on someone who believes in liberty as inalienable
and not to be restricted, as YOU point out, by federal govt REQUIRING you to contract with a private business
and/or penalizing you if you don't believe in buying insurance through this pseudo-govt hybrid mix of private with public
(that was never expressly authorized in the Constitution nor voted on by the people or the states).

I guess it's like even though the logistics and details of the situation are completely different,
if you took the brain waves/response of people on both sides of these two issues,
you could measure an equivalent WEIGHT or level of "hell no, you aren't touching my constitutional rights"
that OVERRIDES all other explanations or reasoning behind the regulations proposed.

The BELIEF that someone has an INHERENT right and that these restrictions (whatever they
are and for whatever reason or method is behind them) are NOT ACCEPTABLE,
these people with these beliefs do NOT AGREE to those conditions,
that YES/NO acceptance/rejection factor is parallel.

So my point is if you want to understand the REJECTION in one case,
look at the REJECTION in the other. Not arguing over "why the two cases are different"
because that is NOT what the human brain is responding to. It is overriding those arguments
and "Not listening" because the fundamental belief is more important that is deciding the yes/no response.

So that's why these issues are getting a resounding NO from the opposition
regardless of the arguments and rationalizations for why the regulations would solve a problem.

It's very similar to why people are unequivocally prochoice or prolife, pro gun or anti gun,
pro legalization or anti drug. There are some political beliefs that are so fundamental
you will not be able to reason with people and change their minds on why you want to introduce restrictions.

With the health care issue, I want to try to use the voting rights issue
to explain why this liberty is so sacred that the opponents to regulations don't agree to mess with that freedom.

Regardless of what abuses may go on, or the benefits of regulations,
they DON'T AGREE to the loss of freedom and liberty and rights.
That is more important than fear of fraud caused by OTHER PEOPLE not them.

And they are NOT willing to give up their rights because of the issues of OTHER PEOPLE.
So that seems to be the common factor, and EMOTIONALLY it seems to REGISTER at an equivalent
level of HELL NO.

 

[emilynghiem]

Even your car insurance to health insurance is not analogous. The only auto insurance you are required to buy is liability which protects the other party. You are not required to buy collision or comp which protects yourself. Health insurance is to protect the purchaser.

Yes, Silent Warrior, the REASONING and scenario for "why we agree or don't agree to the law" is DIFFERENT.

What is similar is how people will AGREE to show ID for beer or banking because they AGREE to that (for whatever
reasons which are NOT similar at all) but they DON'T agree to show ID for voting.

What is similar is they disagree so fundamentally, that no amount of "comparing or contrasting with other scenarios where they AGREED" is going to change their mind. They also can go off on a million reasons they do or don't agree,
but they still DISAGREE on ID in one case and AGREE in the other and won't compromise on that.

And the other side is left saying WHY? because you agreed in the other case, and blah blah blah.
And it makes no difference, the answer is NO I DON'T agree in the case of voting right. Period.

Same with the insurance mandates. No matter how this is explained, why it is different etc.
THAT DOESN'T REGISTER. People only hear that you agreed in one case but you disagree in this one.
They "don't get" why you disagree there "when you AGREED to blah blah blah in these other cases that look
the same to them" NO, they are NOT the same. But to them, it's no different and the explanations makes no sense.

My point is, since people CANNOT understand why the other side is objecting,
then instead of trying to explain over and over and getting NOWHERE,
just COMPARE it to why the same arguments go in circles when it comes to THEIR OBJECTIONS.

These cases are not the same in terms of details.

But they are VERY similar in terms of NOT getting what are these differences and why does it matter?
Both sides just uniequivocally say NO WAY and the other side doesn't get why they can see the difference.

Even if you can't understand the other person's distinctions and reasonings,
if you can understand THEY don't get when YOU object in the other case,
at least they can BACK OFF each other and understand no amount of explanation is going to CHANGE THEIR MIND.

The answer is NO I don't CONSENT and your reasoning does NOT makes sense to me.
But my answer is NO that law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and I DON'T agree to give up my rights for your reasoning.
I am NOT going to change my mind, that law is WRONG PERIOD.

If people can respect that, we can stop pushing these laws that are getting the rubber stamp NO
and quit arguing trying to explain when the answer is still NO.

 

[jwoodie]

Can you reduce this to a syllogistic (if/then) argument, or is this just another example of nonlinear (mulberry bush) thinking?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can you reduce this to a syllogistic (if/then) argument, or is this just another example of nonlinear (mulberry bush) thinking?

OK how's this
A. if people on the left know they are opposed to Voter ID restrictions as regulating their right to vote (when they did not commit a crime to justify losing freedom to vote as themselves without proving it with ID)
and they DON'T accept arguments, comparisons or explanations for these requirement (such as ID being required for banking or buying beer which they already agree to)
then can THIS comparison with health care mandates be used to explain to people on the left
why the opposition on the right reacts in a similar way to mandates on health care and freedom to pay other ways
besides what is regulated and/or fined by govt.

B. if people on the right know they don't agree to the health care mandates (for any number of reasons
that can't be explained to people on the left who don't think or see it that way)
and they know NO AMOUNT of justifications, explanations, "proof" or arguments by the left is going
to change their minds that the mandates are unconstitutional;
and no matter what is said to explain why the mandates are different, the proponents on the left
don't hear, understand or get it,

then can THIS comparison with Voting Rights vs. ID regulations
be used to explain why the other side is objecting
(and why no amount of explanation is going to change their minds either!)

If the left WON'T or CAN'T change their minds about opposition to Voting ID and Voting Rights
no matter what explanations are offered (and regardless what is similar or what is different)
and the right WON'T or CAN'T change their minds about health care mandates and civil liberties
(no matter what explanations are offered and regardless what is similar or what is different)

Can they UNDERSTAND what the other person FEELS like
and agree to RESPECT that since they WANT THE SAME.

They DON'T want GOVT infringing in THAT WAY on THOSE RIGHTS.

Can this be understood even though these two scenarios are different.
Can they respect each other's beliefs even if they don't agree at all.

How can the right wing support Voter ID laws but not support the new health care mandate
^ I searched online and found one person here, asking similar.
This person feels BOTH are overreaching and is asking why do people
understand it is overreaching in one case, but not in the other. ^

What I would add is that people consent to one case but not the other.
So who are we to try to override someone's consent with our arguments.
What if they don't believe the same way we do and can't follow our arguments.
Don't they have the right to believe in rights they hold as inalienable, as long as they
themselves have no criminal intent or record of abusing those rights for fraud, why should they lose their liberty?
Just because OTHER people commit fraud or afraid it will be committed? Where do we draw the line.
And if we are going to draw the lines, shouldn't we AGREE where to draw them?
How can we ask other people to respect our limits, if we run right over theirs!
Can we agree to respect each other's limits, even and especially where we don't understand or agree where the limits are.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Um...
A far better position for consideration:
Oppose voter ID, but support ID for buying a gun.

 

[emilynghiem]

Um...
A far better position for consideration:
Oppose voter ID, but support ID for buying a gun.

Yes, very good, I did come across this when discussing with fellow Democrats and liberal minded friends.

(They automatically understand not to infringe or threaten voters' rights,
but don't seem to get it with gun rights. And people I've met on the right
who don't even think abortion is a choice to begin with don't understand the big deal on banning this choice
that seems automatic as banning murder. That has to be explained to them how
can there be other beliefs about "choice" that aren't promoting abortion or murder.)

One Democrat I met, where both he and his brothers were veterans,
did not understand how people could be SO OPPOSED to gun regulations
they would even oppose regulations in the case of assault weapons. That was beyond what he thought was common sense.

When I explained in terms of citizens previously having freedom to buy these guns,
but now having that liberty DEPRIVED by govt when such citizens didn't commit any crime,
THEN this was more clear that it was wrong to punish law abiding citizens the same as criminals.

I ran into the same with people who never thought to question what was wrong with federal mandates:
"What's wrong with buying insurance, since people need to buy that anyway"

So I see a common pattern here.

And with each person, it may be different WHICH scenario finally explains and makes sense to them
why the opposition is so threatened and offended by losing rights.

If they can understand a parallel situation, where they felt they were "not being heard"
and the other person took it for granted that the opposed regulations are "not really affecting them that seriously, but are necessary to stop those OTHER people from committing worse crimes or fraud," maybe we can come
to a mutual understanding here.

This is really interesting to me, to understand the psychology of conflict and perception.

I am hoping that by comparing and connecting different cases that get stuck in similar deadlocks
that no amount of explaining can change;
this may shed some light on how should we respond when people
coming from different political beliefs, views or perspectives
can't understand each other's opposition.

How can we embrace and work with these differences
as we realize the problems and effects on us are mutual.

One person may feel imposed upon without ability to reason with the opposition in one case;
and the other may feel trapped in a different situation. So if we realize we are doing this to each other,
would THAT be motivation to rethink these situations? And refrain from bullying tactics of coercion to force it,
if we don't agree to being forced when it's our turn to feel trapped in corner,
unable to reason with the people imposing on us!

I really hope some creative insights and better solutions can come from looking into this deeper.

 

[JoeMoma]

Even your car insurance to health insurance is not analogous. The only auto insurance you are required to buy is liability which protects the other party. You are not required to buy collision or comp which protects yourself. Health insurance is to protect the purchaser.

Also, people are not mandated to own or operate a motor vehicle, so they are not mandated to have auto insurance just because they exist.

 

[JoeMoma]

Concerning voter ID:

if a bar owner never checked ID for under aged drinkers, he could presume that all his customers are of legal age and claim that it would be a waste of time to check the IDs of his customers. IOW, how the hell is he going to know if he never checks IDs to begin with.

Many people claim that voter ID is not necessary because of the low number of cases of voter fraud in which someone voted under someone else's identity. Well, if ID is not checked, how in the hell will anyone ever know.

 

[emilynghiem]

Even your car insurance to health insurance is not analogous. The only auto insurance you are required to buy is liability which protects the other party. You are not required to buy collision or comp which protects yourself. Health insurance is to protect the purchaser.

Also, people are not mandated to own or operate a motor vehicle, so they are not mandated to have auto insurance just because they exist.

Yes, JoeMoma
we could go on and on and on
about how these are not the same logistically AT ALL

but what I am saying is the same
is the inability of ANY arguments, comparisons or contrasts
to CHANGE the person's FUNDAMENTAL beliefs and objections.

voting rights are an ABSOLUTE and all reason goes out the window

fre e market choice of health care is ABSOLUTE and any reasoning otherwise goes out the window

The reasons, the details of the regulations cannot be compared at all.

But they are treated the same as going out the window as void anyway
because the rights they would regulate are held as sacred and untouchable.

The point is for more people to REALIZE this is going on,
so we don't ke ep bashing our heads against the wall trying to explain the difference.

It's not going to work.

People have their fundamental beliefs,
like you are not going to convince a Muslim to eat pork
or a Hindu to eat be ef. That's just against their beliefs period.

We respect this when it comes to religious beliefs,
why can't we se e there are political beliefs people have and can't change either!

We don't like OUR beliefs rationalized away in order to justify some regulation we didn't consent to.

Can we get why other people's ears go deaf when it comes to something they believe is untouchable.