Morally Bizarre

[dblack]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/republican-admits-why-republicans-hate-obamacare.html

Conservatives have made a series of specific predictions about the effects of Obamacare — overall costs would rise, insurers would flee the exchanges, premiums would go up, the ranks of the uninsured would not even fall. All these predictions have failed. And yet conservative opposition to the law has not diminished. If you want to know why this is, listen to these secretly recorded comments from Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst, via Radio Iowa and Greg Sargent. Here Ernst, speaking candidly to supporters, gets to the root of conservative opposition:

“We’re looking at Obamacare right now. Once we start with those benefits in January, how are we going to get people off of those? It’s exponentially harder to remove people once they’ve already been on those programs…we rely on government for absolutely everything. And in the years since I was a small girl up until now into my adulthood with children of my own, we have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do. They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it. But we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything.”

That’s the fundamental belief that motivates most, if not all, the conservative opposition: Health care should be a privilege rather than a right. If you can’t afford health insurance on your own, that is not the government’s problem.

I happen to find this belief morally bizarre. People who cannot afford their own insurance either don’t earn much money, or have health risks, or family members with health risks, too expensive to bear.

...

Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.

 

[georgephillip]

Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.

"Indeed, very few Republicans have the confidence to make the case openly that the inability of some people to afford the cost of their own medical care is their own problem.

"But that is the belief that sets them apart from major conservative parties across the world, and it is the belief that explains why they have opposed national health insurance every time Democrats have held power, and why they have neglected to create national health insurance every time they have."
Now that seems morally bizarre, to me.

Republican Admits Why Republicans Hate Obamacare -- NYMag

 

[dblack]

Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.

"Indeed, very few Republicans have the confidence to make the case openly that the inability of some people to afford the cost of their own medical care is their own problem.

"But that is the belief that sets them apart from major conservative parties across the world, and it is the belief that explains why they have opposed national health insurance every time Democrats have held power, and why they have neglected to create national health insurance every time they have."
Now that seems morally bizarre, to me.

Republican Admits Why Republicans Hate Obamacare -- NYMag

Why?

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

 

[American Horse]

People with earnings too low to afford decent health insurance qualified for Medicaid. Virtually all elderly over 65 qualified and still qualify for Medicare.

Before Obamacare, and as recently as 2004, a 63 year old male could purchase a good health plan with drug coverage and a $1,000 deductible for just $200 a month.

Now with Obamacare we see deductibles as high as $12,000 and premiums as high as $20k per year for a "gold" or first line policy.

All these outrageous price increases resulted from government intervention and mandates in and to the health insurance markets with what we are supposed to believe was the best of intentions.

I was able to afford health insurance on the individual (not group and not as an employee) market since 1965 in good times and bad without a lapse and some years I had negative income and never a really windfall year but I always put my insurance premiums first.

Problem is people have lied about health insurance being unaffordable or companies being able to just cancel someone when a claim was made, and gullible people not really wanting to accept responsibility have been deceived into those beliefs and convinced to not really try to explore or shop the healthcare insurance markets.

 

[Mr. H.]

All these predictions have failed.

This is a lie. All these "predictions" have come to fruition.

And we have not even reached the Employer Mandate.

This ACA is neither affordable nor is it an "act".

It is a lop-sided legislative edict imposed upon the American public, based upon blatant lies.

"If you like your shit, you can keep your shit". PERIOD

Fuck you Liberal dipshit lying sacks of shit.

Affordable Care Act architect on camera bashing American voters - CBS News

 

[georgephillip]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

 

[Roadrunner]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.

Why not be honest and say it?

 

[dblack]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"

In this case, healthcare. Unless the supposed "right to healthcare" simply means the right to take care of one's own health (which I'd obviously support), it requires the service of others.

I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

Health care and education are services, not freedoms.

 

[georgephillip]

Health care and education are services, not freedoms.

For profit healthcare has little in common with freedom.
If the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly, doesn't that require the service of others?

 

[georgephillip]

You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.

Why not be honest and say it?

I recognized brain-washed capitalists find the concept of service to others threatening to the Divine Rights of the Rich:

"Economist Branko Horvat stated: '... it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Health care and education are services, not freedoms.

For profit healthcare has little in common with freedom.
If the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly, doesn't that require the service of others?

Huh?

 

[georgephillip]

Huh?

How are individual rights like the freedom to assemble implemented without requiring the service of others?

 

[dblack]

Huh?

How are individual rights like the freedom to assemble implemented without requiring the service of others?

By not violating them. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[georgephillip]

By not violating them. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm not doing a very good job of communicating or maybe we are talking past each other again. I'm trying to say our individual freedoms don't exist in any practical sense without the service of others.

 

[dblack]

By not violating them. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm not doing a very good job of communicating or maybe we are talking past each other again. I'm trying to say our individual freedoms don't exist in any practical sense without the service of others.

And I'd say that's not the case at all. All that is required to preserve freedom is a mutual agreement to avoid violating it. The freedom to act doesn't require that anyone else facilitate your action, merely that they refrain from interfering. I don't know how you can compare such a concession to a deliberate, proactive service like healthcare.

 

[georgephillip]

And I'd say that's not the case at all. All that is required to preserve freedom is a mutual agreement to avoid violating it

Is there not also a mutual agreement to collectively defend freedom for it to have any practical individual value?

 

[dblack]

And I'd say that's not the case at all. All that is required to preserve freedom is a mutual agreement to avoid violating it

Is there not also a mutual agreement to collectively defend freedom for it to have any practical individual value?

You're missing the point. All anyone must do to accommodate the freedoms of others is to avoid violating them. But when we try to make services like healthcare "rights", it implies someone (who?) must perform said service.

 

[midcan5]

OMG the usual whining, half truths, and total BS from the 'can't do American right wing.' You guys are such cry babies I wonder how you even have time to post your nonsense? Don't tears get in your sorry eyes? The right is the right to buy health insurance and that is what the ACA does, it provides affordable options, something you wingnut corporate tools wouldn't understand. Cry on losers cry on.

Burwell 100 000 people submitted applications for ACA coverage - The Washington Post

 

[georgephillip]

You're missing the point. All anyone must do to accommodate the freedoms of others is to avoid violating them

Everyone depends on the service of others to protect their rights or did you miss that point too.

 

[dblack]

You're missing the point. All anyone must do to accommodate the freedoms of others is to avoid violating them

Everyone depends on the service of others to protect their rights or did you miss that point too.

That's a diversion. I'm discussing what demands a "right" makes on others. Exercising a freedom requires only that other people leave you alone. When you claim a service like healthcare as a "right", it requires that other people take care of your health, doesn't it? Isn't that what you mean by a right to healthcare?