Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[TakeAStepBack]

We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having? If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.

This is worth discussing. My conception of freedom includes the right to buy whatever someone else is willing to sell me. As long as no one else is harmed in the exchange, it's no one else's business.

In this case, that's the freedom I lament not having. And it's a freedom that fans of the regulatory state are loathe to recognize. You like to think that regulations merely constrain the providers of goods and services, but it's a two way street. Regulations that dictate what people are allowed to sell dictate what people are allowed to buy.

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry. And it's not really freedom at all, it's the opposite. Real freedom to choose always implies the possibility that you may choose poorly, and suffer the consequences. The "freedom" to blunder through life with no accountability for the choices you make (because they were all made for you and you were just following orders) is no kind of freedom worth having.

Ask Samuel Gorton, Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson regarding freedom. There fight was a bit different, but ultimately, it is the same thing.

 

[Oddball]

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry.

Worth isolating and expounding upon.

"Freedom" as expressed by the framers is a value of acquisition or a "moving toward" value, if you will.

The only "freedom from" (or "moving away" value) that was recognized as legitimate was the freedom from aggressive antisocial individuals who would seek to abuse their freedom, by maliciously harming another person or their property.

Today, it's these very malicious antisocial people are the ones who've seized power, using the "freedom from" meme to consolidate their power over the populace, whom they view as mere chattel property.

 

[Koios]

We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having? If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.

This is worth discussing. My conception of freedom includes the right to buy whatever someone else is willing to sell me. As long as no one else is harmed in the exchange, it's no one else's business.

In this case, that's the freedom I lament not having. And it's a freedom that fans of the regulatory state are loathe to recognize. You like to think that regulations merely constrain the providers of goods and services, but it's a two way street. Regulations that dictate what people are allowed to sell dictate what people are allowed to buy.

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry. And it's not really freedom at all, it's the opposite. Real freedom to choose always implies the possibility that you may choose poorly, and suffer the consequences. The "freedom" to blunder through life with no accountability for the choices you make (because they were all made for you and you were just following orders) is no kind of freedom worth having.

Fair enough. But it could potentially harm me, my greatest fear. Here's how:

Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print. Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans. You're fucked.

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough. But it could potentially harm me, my greatest fear. Here's how:

Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print. Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans. You're fucked.

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PULIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

Your fears, and subsequent mythical paranoid scare story scenarios spawned by them, are your problem, comrade.

You don't want to get ripped off by Medicare, then it makes much better sense to junk it rather than insist that everyone else risk getting ripped off too.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Increases insurance company options and since they will have to compete, lowers our costs. Same with drugs.

This is exactly why the pubpots are still fighting ACA. They work for big business.

 

[Koios]

Fair enough. But it could potentially harm me, my greatest fear. Here's how:

Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print. Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans. You're fucked.

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PULIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

Your fears, and subsequent mythical paranoid scare story scenarios spawned by them, are your problem, comrade.

You don't want to get ripped off by Medicare, then it makes much better sense to junk it rather than insist that everyone else risk getting ripped off too.

Seriously now. Not kidding this time. Were you dropped as a child? Do you fall down a lot? WTF?

 

[dblack]

Increases insurance company options and since they will have to compete, lowers our costs. Same with drugs.

This is exactly why the pubpots are still fighting ACA. They work for big business.

I don't. In fact, the worst aspect of ACA is that it is a ploy by the insurance industry to maintain their dominance. They're peddling a dysfunctional product and don't want to make the radical changes required. So, they've turned to government to maintain their privileged position. It's a tale as old as government.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fair enough. But it could potentially harm me, my greatest fear. Here's how:

Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print. Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans. You're fucked.

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PULIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

Your fears, and subsequent mythical paranoid scare story scenarios spawned by them, are your problem, comrade.

You don't want to get ripped off by Medicare, then it makes much better sense to junk it rather than insist that everyone else risk getting ripped off too.

As with all the other "isms" you uneducated ignorant fools toss around while not have a clue to their true meaning, why don't you PROVE that this poster is a Communist or SHIT THE FUCK UP.

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough. But it could potentially harm me, my greatest fear. Here's how:

Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print. Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans. You're fucked.

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PULIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

Your fears, and subsequent mythical paranoid scare story scenarios spawned by them, are your problem, comrade.

You don't want to get ripped off by Medicare, then it makes much better sense to junk it rather than insist that everyone else risk getting ripped off too.

Seriously now. Not kidding this time. Were you dropped as a child? Do you fall down a lot? WTF?

You're to economically illiterate and puerile to be serious, or even be taken seriously.

 

[Koios]

We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having? If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.

This is worth discussing. My conception of freedom includes the right to buy whatever someone else is willing to sell me. As long as no one else is harmed in the exchange, it's no one else's business.

In this case, that's the freedom I lament not having. And it's a freedom that fans of the regulatory state are loathe to recognize. You like to think that regulations merely constrain the providers of goods and services, but it's a two way street. Regulations that dictate what people are allowed to sell dictate what people are allowed to buy.

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry. And it's not really freedom at all, it's the opposite. Real freedom to choose always implies the possibility that you may choose poorly, and suffer the consequences. The "freedom" to blunder through life with no accountability for the choices you make (because they were all made for you and you were just following orders) is no kind of freedom worth having.

Kidding / wild senarios aside, it's a simple as this: They are not free to harm you. And rather than clogging up our civil courts or criminal justice system with myriad actions going after folks who ARE NOT FREE TO HARM YOU, we do a bit of crime prevention: make sure the policies being sold in your state do not harm you, in violation of YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

 

[Koios]

Your fears, and subsequent mythical paranoid scare story scenarios spawned by them, are your problem, comrade.

You don't want to get ripped off by Medicare, then it makes much better sense to junk it rather than insist that everyone else risk getting ripped off too.

Seriously now. Not kidding this time. Were you dropped as a child? Do you fall down a lot? WTF?

You're to economically illiterate and puerile to be serious, or even be taken seriously.

Banner day. I think I'll pour myself a glass.

Thanks so much. Ignore me to your heart's content.

 

[Oddball]

Increases insurance company options and since they will have to compete, lowers our costs. Same with drugs.

This is exactly why the pubpots are still fighting ACA. They work for big business.

Right...The same way that Medicare "competes" with...?

Oh yeah....

 

[dblack]

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

It's sort of ironic how often the liberal position comes down to this (traditionally) "stingy conservative" motif. If your main concern is that freeloaders will get benes on your nickel, then fight that fight! If you want to propose legislation that eliminates Medicare/Medicaid or gets rid of EMTALA, go for it!

Instead, what you're arguing for here is government that legislates on what we "might" do - effectively punishing us in advance for something we haven't done yet. I am in full agreement that people should be held accountable for their decisions. But they should be free to make those decisions, even if you or I think they are in err.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having? If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.

This is worth discussing. My conception of freedom includes the right to buy whatever someone else is willing to sell me. As long as no one else is harmed in the exchange, it's no one else's business.

In this case, that's the freedom I lament not having. And it's a freedom that fans of the regulatory state are loathe to recognize. You like to think that regulations merely constrain the providers of goods and services, but it's a two way street. Regulations that dictate what people are allowed to sell dictate what people are allowed to buy.

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry. And it's not really freedom at all, it's the opposite. Real freedom to choose always implies the possibility that you may choose poorly, and suffer the consequences. The "freedom" to blunder through life with no accountability for the choices you make (because they were all made for you and you were just following orders) is no kind of freedom worth having.

Kidding / wild senarios aside, it's a simple as this: They are not free to harm you. And rather than clogging up our civil courts or criminal justice system with myriad actions going after folks who ARE NOT FREE TO HARM YOU, we do a bit of crime prevention: make sure the policies being sold in your state do not harm you, in violation of YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

Policies sold in a state should be left to the state to handle. Why are you advocating otherwise? Plus, it is the JOB of our government to uphold the constitution and protect our rights. That is their business. Not picking winners and losers, paying for everyones toilet brush and the plethora of other responsibilities the government has told simpletons like you they should handle because you're too fucking stupid to do it yourself.....oh, wait. I think we've figured out why he's so in favor of a little protection at the expense of freedom.

 

[Oddball]

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

It's sort of ironic how often the liberal position comes down to this (traditionally) "stingy conservative" motif. If your main concern is that freeloaders will get benes on your nickel, then fight that fight! If you want to propose legislation that eliminates Medicare/Medicaid or gets rid of EMTALA, go for it!

Instead, what you're arguing for here is government that legislates on what we "might" do - effectively punishing us in advance for something we haven't done yet. I am in full agreement that people should be held accountable for their decisions. But they should be free to make those decisions, even if you or I think they are in err.

Careful...You're perilously close to getting accused of being dropped on your head!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

It's sort of ironic how often the liberal position comes down to this (traditionally) "stingy conservative" motif. If your main concern is that freeloaders will get benes on your nickel, then fight that fight! If you want to propose legislation that eliminates Medicare/Medicaid or gets rid of EMTALA, go for it!

Instead, what you're arguing for here is government that legislates on what we "might" do - effectively punishing us in advance for something we haven't done yet. I am in full agreement that people should be held accountable for their decisions. But they should be free to make those decisions, even if you or I think they are in err.

For Samuel Gorton, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, the idea of being punished for something you might do would probably sound a lot like being punished because of your belief...or thinking out loud.

It's the same thing really. Not much has changed in ~400 years.

 

[Koios]

And maybe me, too. (my fear) You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, on my friggin' nickel (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.

It's sort of ironic how often the liberal position comes down to this (traditionally) "stingy conservative" motif. If your main concern is that freeloaders will get benes on your nickel, then fight that fight! If you want to propose legislation that eliminates Medicare/Medicaid or gets rid of EMTALA, go for it!

Instead, what you're arguing for here is government that legislates on what we "might" do - effectively punishing us in advance for something we haven't done yet. I am in full agreement that people should be held accountable for their decisions. But they should be free to make those decisions, even if you or I think they are in err.

In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out. My position came done to nothing of the sort.

And in re: para 2, no. No one is being punished for something they haven't done yet. That's a cheesy movie with Tom Cruise, and a fiction. We have no pre-crime. What we do is punish those whose policies are deemed unworthy, and not up to the standards of our state, as approved by the voters in our state.

 

[Koios]

Policies sold in a state should be left to the state to handle. Why are you advocating otherwise? Plus, it is the JOB of our government to uphold the constitution and protect our rights. That is their business. Not picking winners and losers, paying for everyones toilet brush and the plethora of other responsibilities the government has told simpletons like you they should handle because you're too fucking stupid to do it yourself.....oh, wait. I think we've figured out why he's so in favor of a little protection at the expense of freedom.

I'm not. Take a step back, and re-read what I've posted. That might help.

 

[dblack]

In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out. My position came done to nothing of the sort.

What???

And in re: para 2, no. No one is being punished for something they haven't done yet. That's a cheesy movie with Tom Cruise, and a fiction. We have no pre-crime. What we do is punish those whose policies are deemed unworthy, and not up to the standards of our state, as approved by the voters in our state.

Exactly. We're not punishing people for harming others. We're punishing them for not doing as they are told.

The usually excuse for this is that, in the opinion of the state, their actions might cause harm to others - which is why I made the leap to the state 'punishing people for what they haven't done yet'. If, your view, they are simply being punished for being deemed 'unworthy' by the state, then will go with that. Even more despicable, in my view.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Alright, this is getting very "paul Krugman" like. I guess i best be off...