Why we needed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I have never waivered in my opinion that we need universal preventative health care in our country. Our system of law making is built on compromise - or used to be until the radical right came upon the scene. Though I have never advocated for socialized medicine.

How is 'universal preventative health care' not socialized medicine?

I've supported a hybrid where we have public/private participation (which in fact we have a limited form today in our county hospital system) and every citizen is provided low or no cost preventative health care from cradle to grave.

Yes. The worst of both worlds. All the profit and greed of private corporations combined with the coercive power of the state. This is what I was referring to as the goal of PPACA - not to repair the health care market, but to replace it with a corporatist cartel of 'providers'. No thanks.

It's funny (as in odd) that your side argues about personal responsibility and 'welfare queens' yet opposed holding those who can afford health insurance from the requirement to buy it.

Responsibility isn't the same thing as obedience.
 
Wow, I'm awed by the power of the arguments presented by the three above. From the first two I expect nothing but the personal attack, both hold opinions which meet at the bottom of the political pie chart - where the far right and the far left meet, known well as the idioit fringe. It doesn't mean they are idiots, though whenever either of them posts it's apparent they are mentally outside of the real world.

Number three raises the same objection we've 'heard' for one hundred years but adds on that both government and the private sector are incapable of working together or apart to solve a problem. Better described thusly: No soluton exists and any idea suggesting one must be foolish.
 
tumblr_mctunvG4wb1r54qfqo1_500.png

I get the point, but Levin is hardly the guy I want in my corner.
 
Number three raises the same objection we've 'heard' for one hundred years but adds on that both government and the private sector are incapable of working together or apart to solve a problem. Better described thusly: No soluton exists and any idea suggesting one must be foolish.

??? That's not what I said at all. It's not that government and the private sector are incapable of "working together", it's that they shouldn't - certainly not in the way you're advocating. Corporatist government pushes us down a path toward full blown fascism. It's a direct refutation of liberalism, eschewing individual rights and egalitarian government in favor of group privilege. I'll always reject this sort of development, regardless of its presumed short term benefits.

Nor did I say that no solution exists. That's you pouting because I'm pointing out how your suggested solution is worse than the problem it's trying to solve.
 
Last edited:
More government regulation always makes thing cheaper and more accessible.
Lack of regulation is why the US has the highest priced healthcare in the world. You'd think it would be the best, but it's #37.


Lack of Regulation? Hahahaha!

We have extreme amounts of regulations covering the health care system, from taxes to FDA to insurance, etc.

The fact that you can't identify causality here is rather pathetic.
 
Number three raises the same objection we've 'heard' for one hundred years but adds on that both government and the private sector are incapable of working together or apart to solve a problem. Better described thusly: No soluton exists and any idea suggesting one must be foolish.

??? That's not what I said at all. It's not that government and the private sector are incapable of "working together", it's that they shouldn't - certainly not in the way you're advocating. Corporatist government pushes us down a path toward full blown fascism. It's a direct refutation of liberalism, eschewing individual rights and egalitarian government in favor of group privilege. I'll always reject this sort of development, regardless of its presumed short term benefits.

Nor did I say that no solution exists. That's you pouting because I'm pointing out how your suggested solution is worse than the problem it's trying to solve.

What I inferred is your solution is the status quo. Yes or no? I'm not suggesting I know all the answers or understand all of the impediments to what I suggested. That said, what we have isn't working and the power elite, the special interests, have gone all out in defending the golden goose at the expense of the American people.

Ideology is the last thing we need in seeking solutions, which is why the posts of the other two are not worth commenting on. They think they know The Truth but never express it in practical terms for it's much easier for them to cavil and call others stupid. Nothing sagacious has ever been written by either of them.
 
Number three raises the same objection we've 'heard' for one hundred years but adds on that both government and the private sector are incapable of working together or apart to solve a problem. Better described thusly: No soluton exists and any idea suggesting one must be foolish.

??? That's not what I said at all. It's not that government and the private sector are incapable of "working together", it's that they shouldn't - certainly not in the way you're advocating. Corporatist government pushes us down a path toward full blown fascism. It's a direct refutation of liberalism, eschewing individual rights and egalitarian government in favor of group privilege. I'll always reject this sort of development, regardless of its presumed short term benefits.

Nor did I say that no solution exists. That's you pouting because I'm pointing out how your suggested solution is worse than the problem it's trying to solve.

What I inferred is your solution is the status quo. Yes or no?

Absolutely not. The status quo is a mess. I don't know how you inferred any support on my end for the current state of things. I see most of the same problems you do.

I'm just tired of seeing our nation suckered into to bad agendas with the claim that doing "something" is always better than doing "nothing". In the case of PPACA, it's my conviction that it's worse.

Ideology is the last thing we need in seeking solutions, which is why the posts of the other two are not worth commenting on. They think they know The Truth but never express it in practical terms for it's much easier for them to cavil and call others stupid. Nothing sagacious has ever been written by either of them.

I couldn't disagree more. Ideology is the first thing we need. Ideology is how we answer the broad questions (What kind of government do we want? What is its purpose? What kinds of problems should it try to solve in the first place?) that inform immediate policies. Without it we're simply blowing in the wind, subject to the whims and ambitions of whoever is currently in charge.
 
??? That's not what I said at all. It's not that government and the private sector are incapable of "working together", it's that they shouldn't - certainly not in the way you're advocating. Corporatist government pushes us down a path toward full blown fascism. It's a direct refutation of liberalism, eschewing individual rights and egalitarian government in favor of group privilege. I'll always reject this sort of development, regardless of its presumed short term benefits.

Nor did I say that no solution exists. That's you pouting because I'm pointing out how your suggested solution is worse than the problem it's trying to solve.

What I inferred is your solution is the status quo. Yes or no?

Absolutely not. The status quo is a mess. I don't know how you inferred any support on my end for the current state of things. I see most of the same problems you do.

I'm just tired of seeing our nation suckered into to bad agendas with the claim that doing "something" is always better than doing "nothing". In the case of PPACA, it's my conviction that it's worse.

Ideology is the last thing we need in seeking solutions, which is why the posts of the other two are not worth commenting on. They think they know The Truth but never express it in practical terms for it's much easier for them to cavil and call others stupid. Nothing sagacious has ever been written by either of them.

I couldn't disagree more. Ideology is the first thing we need. Ideology is how we answer the broad questions (What kind of government do we want? What is its purpose? What kinds of problems should it try to solve in the first place?) that inform immediate policies. Without it we're simply blowing in the wind, subject to the whims and ambitions of whoever is currently in charge.

I think your speaking of values not ideology. My values are framed by two ideas: The Golden Rule and The greatest good to the greatest number. Within that structure one can be pragmatic when proposing ideas and not limited by preconceived directions which deny one to explore the universe of ideas.
 
The greatest good to the greatest number.

How many millions have perished under the guise of that idea? You see, your value requires a central planner to determine exactly what is best for the greater good. Problem. Big problem.

Personally, I value freedom.
 
The greatest good to the greatest number.

How many millions have perished under the guise of that idea? You see, your value requires a central planner to determine exactly what is best for the greater good. Problem. Big problem.

Personally, I value freedom.

OH bullshit. You see the phrase the greatest good, etc. as limiting, one which limits individual freedom and ignore the Golden Rule aspect which I posted.
 
What I inferred is your solution is the status quo. Yes or no?

Absolutely not. The status quo is a mess. I don't know how you inferred any support on my end for the current state of things. I see most of the same problems you do.

I'm just tired of seeing our nation suckered into to bad agendas with the claim that doing "something" is always better than doing "nothing". In the case of PPACA, it's my conviction that it's worse.

Ideology is the last thing we need in seeking solutions, which is why the posts of the other two are not worth commenting on. They think they know The Truth but never express it in practical terms for it's much easier for them to cavil and call others stupid. Nothing sagacious has ever been written by either of them.

I couldn't disagree more. Ideology is the first thing we need. Ideology is how we answer the broad questions (What kind of government do we want? What is its purpose? What kinds of problems should it try to solve in the first place?) that inform immediate policies. Without it we're simply blowing in the wind, subject to the whims and ambitions of whoever is currently in charge.

I think your speaking of values not ideology. My values are framed by two ideas: The Golden Rule and The greatest good to the greatest number. Within that structure one can be pragmatic when proposing ideas and not limited by preconceived directions which deny one to explore the universe of ideas.

No, I'm referring to ideology. What most people call 'values' are too vague to be of much use guiding political policy.
 
The greatest good to the greatest number.

How many millions have perished under the guise of that idea? You see, your value requires a central planner to determine exactly what is best for the greater good. Problem. Big problem.

Personally, I value freedom.

OH bullshit. You see the phrase the greatest good, etc. as limiting, one which limits individual freedom and ignore the Golden Rule aspect which I posted.

Because it does. Every tyrant of the past that carried out atrocities in the name of the greater good also had some justification for it. Hundreds of millions of lives later, throwing out "...do unto others..." does not change that.

Screw your greater good. I'll take freedom, liberty and voluntary choice every time because, and this may come as a shock, you do NOT know what's best for everyone else.
 
Absolutely not. The status quo is a mess. I don't know how you inferred any support on my end for the current state of things. I see most of the same problems you do.

I'm just tired of seeing our nation suckered into to bad agendas with the claim that doing "something" is always better than doing "nothing". In the case of PPACA, it's my conviction that it's worse.



I couldn't disagree more. Ideology is the first thing we need. Ideology is how we answer the broad questions (What kind of government do we want? What is its purpose? What kinds of problems should it try to solve in the first place?) that inform immediate policies. Without it we're simply blowing in the wind, subject to the whims and ambitions of whoever is currently in charge.

I think your speaking of values not ideology. My values are framed by two ideas: The Golden Rule and The greatest good to the greatest number. Within that structure one can be pragmatic when proposing ideas and not limited by preconceived directions which deny one to explore the universe of ideas.

No, I'm referring to ideology. What most people call 'values' are too vague to be of much use guiding political policy.

The GR and Greatest Good are not vague, yet are not limiting. Consider Plato's example in The Republic on Justice with the current debate on gun controls. The NRA Ideology is opposed to any form of gun (weapon) control; Socrates argued it would be unjust to return the weapon to the madman for it would jeopardized others. The pragmatist can reconcile such a matter by supporting a policy to license all citizens who desire to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a gun. Madmen might be denied a license, sane citizens licensed with the understanding for cause such license can be suspended or revoked.

Is such a perfect solution, nope. But the NRA ideology won't allow for any discussion on this idea or any idea to limit guns in our society.
 
Is such a perfect solution, nope. But the NRA ideology won't allow for any discussion on this idea or any idea to limit guns in our society.

It's not only not a perfect solution, it's an INSANE solution. Your ideas only limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals and crazies don't care about your regulations. Therefore, your rules have the actual consequence of putting good people at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals! That's insane.
 
Is such a perfect solution, nope. But the NRA ideology won't allow for any discussion on this idea or any idea to limit guns in our society.

It's not only not a perfect solution, it's an INSANE solution. Your ideas only limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals and crazies don't care about your regulations. Therefore, your rules have the actual consequence of putting good people at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals! That's insane.

It's an idea genius, and one not perfect. However, it does not limit the law abiding citizens anymore than a driver's license limits ones operation of a motor vehicle. It would make those who refused to obtain the license a criminal and culpable for punishments. If you get caught driving without a license you get a ticket, if you get caught with a gun you get a ticket. Big deal. Both require tests to make sure the licensee has the ability to operate the car/gun safely and within the law.
 

Forum List

Back
Top